# Big things happening in Ferguson.



## Hijinx

No longer satisfied with just rioting , the usual suspects ion 90% of riots in America are now shooting at Police.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/12/f...rs-fired-multiple-times-at-police-helicopter/

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_7fb366f0-2f29-5bdd-b18b-34c9d8c688e7.html

And of course Al Sharpton has arrived to stir the sh*t.  Looking for a few bucks out of it is my guess.

He should be arrested for incitement , the minute he shows up on the scene.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Hijinx said:


> No longer satisfied with just rioting , the usual suspects ion 90% of riots in America are now shooting at Police.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/12/f...rs-fired-multiple-times-at-police-helicopter/
> 
> http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_7fb366f0-2f29-5bdd-b18b-34c9d8c688e7.html
> 
> And of course Al Sharpton has arrived to stir the sh*t.  Looking for a few bucks out of it is my guess.
> 
> He should be arrested for incitement , the minute he shows up on the scene.



Funny how you choose to post this and not the apparent martial law laid down in Ferguson by restricting airspace and journalists from the area. Instead you choose on the story that is designed to divide and conquer. That's because you're a sucker.


----------



## Hijinx

LibertyBeacon said:


> Funny how you choose to post this and not the apparent martial law laid down in Ferguson by restricting airspace and journalists from the area. Instead you choose on the story that is designed to divide and conquer. That's because you're a sucker.



Well I don't see how not posting of the apparent martial law would stop any division or conquer ---whoever they wish to conquer, but if you say so--------??????????

Also Al Sharpton's arrival on the scene is not to Divide ????  The story mentions the restrictions on flying because  a police helicopter was fired on so now you believe they should not have restricted flying??  OK---You believe they should let helicopters go there and be shot at ?   Make sense man .


----------



## glhs837

LibertyBeacon said:


> Funny how you choose to post this and not the apparent martial law laid down in Ferguson by restricting airspace and journalists from the area. Instead you choose on the story that is designed to divide and conquer. That's because you're a sucker.



So, faced with rampant destruction of citizens property, the govt should do what?


----------



## Hijinx

http://ktla.com/2014/08/12/man-hospitalized-after-being-shot-by-police-in-south-l-a/

Damn: A man shot in the back lying on the ground in LA and Al Sharpton is tied up in Ferguson.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

glhs837 said:


> So, faced with rampant destruction of citizens property, the govt should do what?



This had nothing to do with preventing property destruction. It is all about preventing press coverage of the riots and, more importantly, the police response to same.

This would have been a perfect time for a UAV/UAS owned by a media company to be used below the flight levels where police helos are. Whoops, FAA says no to commercial UAV/UAS, which would include media use.

Suppression of dissent is knocking on the front door.


----------



## Gilligan

LibertyBeacon said:


> Suppression of dissent is knocking on the front door.



Mobs looting convenience and appliance stores is "dissent"?   I never knew.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Gilligan said:


> Mobs looting convenience and appliance stores is "dissent"?   I never knew.



I think you fail to see the bigger picture. That's why you are an underachiever.


----------



## Gilligan

LibertyBeacon said:


> I think you fail to see the bigger picture. That's why you are an underachiever.




So paint me the picture. And you are beyond clueless about what I've achieved, but that's no matter.


----------



## aps45819

LibertyBeacon said:


> I think you fail to see the bigger picture. That's why you are an underachiever.



The bigger picture is that animals who smash and rob the property of hard working Americans should be shot. 

The only injustice in their community is the injustice they voted for


----------



## LibertyBeacon

aps45819 said:


> The bigger picture is that animals who smash and rob the property of hard working Americans should be shot.



I would have no problem with any citizen who was defending their property shooting and killing someone in the process.

Just what the #### is your point?


----------



## Vince

Where's Jesse??


----------



## glhs837

So, let me see if I understand, while mobs rampage destroying, the people we hire to maintain order and prevent/stop such things should stand down? Are you of the opinion these crowds are chanting kumbya and holding candles, organizing a political party to engage in the legal process to right wrongs? If so, I have some video to show you. Please explain to me how this destruction/theft of other peoples property equates to "dissent". there is valid dissent going on, real protests, and last I saw, nobody was blocking cameras for those.  

So, here's a good timeline, tweets from on scene, some Vines. From what I see, police were holding a line, nothing going on until the reports of fires, lootings and destruction. Please show me the boot of the oppressor in this data. Stop taking general crap and give with the facts.  Specifics, with examples, please.

http://twitchy.com/2014/08/10/and-t...est-escalates-in-ferguson-mo-pics-vine-video/


I'll noite, about halfway down, there appears to be a female reporters bit. Seems they were on scene, and had to leave after someone smashed the windows in the news van. So maybe it's not the Man keeping the press out, but the presses rightful caution to not place reporters in harms way


----------



## SG_Player1974

MLK would be SO proud! Glad he worked so hard to achieve THIS!


----------



## Gilligan

Vince said:


> Where's Jesse??



Racing to the scene to try and get there before Al Sharptongue. He's apparently losing the race though...must be losing some of the hustle in his "race hustler" role.


----------



## glhs837

Gilligan said:


> Racing to the scene to try and get there before Al Sharptongue. He's apparently losing the race though...must be losing some of the hustle in his "race hustler" role.



Al's gone all low drag high speed these days. Not to mention he's got a "network" backing his plays.


----------



## vraiblonde

LibertyBeacon said:


> Suppression of dissent is knocking on the front door.



You seem like a smart person, so I wish you'd think these things through before you commit publicly to a position.  This situation is not simply "dissent".


----------



## LibertyBeacon

vraiblonde said:


> You seem like a smart person, so I wish you'd think these things through before you commit publicly to a position.  This situation is not simply "dissent".



I didn't suggest it was; if I did, please quote the relevant passage.

What it is is conditioning to get citizens used to a constant police presence in full BDUs and MRAPs. Think of it as a practice run, if you will, for martial law/full-on police sates in towns and cities. There are many examples of this in recent history, but another "practice run" was in Boston immediately after the FBI controlled assets, I mean Moslems, strike that too -- those two young fellas blew #### up in Boston. That is the relevance to the quelling of dissent. Some people won't understand until it is on their front door.


----------



## vraiblonde

LibertyBeacon said:


> What it is is conditioning to get citizens used to a constant police presence in full BDUs and MRAPs.



Stop right there.  WHO created this situation?

Answer:  the rioters and looters.

The cops can't just let them go on about their mayhem - the other citizens of the town don't like it.  So they go in and try to shut them down.  The media, of course, wants to come in and get video of anything they can edit and clip to make people like you think these poor downtrodden dissenters are being abused by the big bad Nazi cops.  I don't blame the Mayor or whoever for prohibiting media presence.  If they weren't such a bunch of ####ing idiots maybe things could be different.

Do not blame the police for responding; blame the criminals for giving them something they must respond to.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

vraiblonde said:


> Stop right there.  WHO created this situation?
> 
> Answer:  the rioters and looters.



Yes, I agree that is what it would appear according to media reports. I am sure you understand that just like we can put some CIA operatives and "economic hit men" on the ground in countries we want to overthrow, so too can we create a situation like we are seeing unfold in Ferguson, Mizzourah in order to create a situation that is ripe for a government power grab or for some other scheme they are working on. You gotta make the people want more government control. That is a key element.

And I am sure you know the adage Ben Franklin gave us: "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see."


----------



## Chris0nllyn

I feel bad for the people that are protesting, peacefully. 

You've got a bunch of young punks using this opportunity to do what they would do any other time.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Chris0nllyn said:


> I feel bad for the people that are protesting, peacefully.
> 
> You've got a bunch of young punks using this opportunity to do what they would do any other time.



Yes, it's unfortunate, but not unexpected. There are studies that show blacks are more likely to vote for Democrap candidates. Quite likely, that Democrap candidate stumps on a platform of "let's take some sh!t from this rich guy and give it to the poor". It's quite ironic, but again not unexpected if one's eyes are wide open, that the biggest benefactors of this so-called "Free Sh!t Army" are in fact banks, defense contractors, Wall St., politicians, etc. So it's quite understandable how these people feel entitled to other people's stuff; that is what they have been told their entire life and has been engrained in their culture, their being. But they've never seen the "payout".

And it is quite understandable how it is so easy to create a situation like that which we are watching unfold.


----------



## Gilligan

LibertyBeacon said:


> So it's quite understandable how these people feel entitled to other people's stuff; that is what they have been told their entire life and has been engrained in their culture, their being..



So you are saying that, while they might have been well raised, with good morals and solid character, they were ultimately corrupted by Democratic politicians and became vandals and looters.  Yeah, I can see that.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Gilligan said:


> So you are saying that, while they might have been well raised, with good morals and solid character, they were ultimately corrupted by Democratic politicians and became vandals and looters.  Yeah, I can see that.



I have no idea how they were raised. I've never met anyone from Ferguson, Mizzourah, so it's probably safe to say I don't know any of them personally. But yes, Democrap and Repugnicant politicians are equally vandals and looters, so I will accept your characterization of my statement.


----------



## Gilligan

LibertyBeacon said:


> I have no idea how they were raised. I've never met anyone from Ferguson, Mizzourah, so it's probably safe to say I don't know any of them personally. But yes, Democrap and Repugnicant politicians are equally vandals and looters, so I will accept your characterization of my statement.



I was referring to that huge broad brush you painted with.


----------



## vraiblonde

LibertyBeacon said:


> Yes, I agree that is what it would appear according to media reports. I am sure you understand that just like we can put some CIA operatives and "economic hit men" on the ground in countries we want to overthrow, so too can we create a situation like we are seeing unfold in Ferguson, Mizzourah in order to create a situation that is ripe for a government power grab or for some other scheme they are working on. You gotta make the people want more government control. That is a key element.
> 
> And I am sure you know the adage Ben Franklin gave us: "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see."



Okay, so you think that the media is making up stories of rioting and looting?  Or you think the CIA planted people to instigate it?

And with that we have nothing left to discuss, because you are relying on your imagination rather than any news reports.  Short of driving there and seeing for myself, I cannot argue with your imagination - even if I did go there, you'd just say I was making it up and clearly a CIA operative under cover.


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> ...clearly a CIA operative under cover.



You aren't??


----------



## Hijinx

vraiblonde said:


> Okay, so you think that the media is making up stories of rioting and looting?  Or you think the CIA planted people to instigate it?
> 
> And with that we have nothing left to discuss, because you are relying on your imagination rather than any news reports.  Short of driving there and seeing for myself, I cannot argue with your imagination - even if I did go there, you'd just say I was making it up and clearly a CIA operative under cover.



Well let's look at what the Police actually do in these situations.

They do not stop the riots , nor do they even try.
They do not make massive arrests , and they do not shoot looters.

They dress up in their Wannabee SWAT riot gear and try to contain it.
They try not to get themselves in a position where they may have to shoot their way out.
Do they need reporters there stirring up more trouble or getting in the way?  No they do not.
Do they need reporters flying their own UAV's around?  Possibly getting in the way of a Police Helicopter?  No they do not.

Remember anyone they arrest or shoot was a good boy who loved his grandmother , was turning his life around, and did not deserve to get shot.


----------



## vraiblonde

Gilligan said:


> You aren't??



Shhhh....


----------



## Chris0nllyn

This is why there should be cameras.

A camera in the cop car could have caught the video (or at least audio) of the incident.

A body camera worn by the cop would have done the same thing.

A cell phone camera used by the "friend" could have also shed some light on this.

Unfortunately, his friend didn't whip out his cell phone.

Cop cars there don't have dash cams and they haven't used their body cameras yet.



> Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told KSDK-TV that there's no video footage of the shooting from the apartment complex or from any police cruiser dashboard cameras or body-worn cameras that the department recently bought but has not yet put to use.



View attachment 104173


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> This is why there should be cameras.



Oh stop it.  Do you really want cameras all over the place, constantly watching us like Big Brother?  If cops were all equipped with cameras to spy on us every second of the day you would lose your mind.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

vraiblonde said:


> Oh stop it.  Do you really want cameras all over the place, constantly watching us like Big Brother?  If cops were all equipped with cameras to spy on us every second of the day you would lose your mind.



Dash cams and body cameras are not "big brother", and I've advocated for them in the past. 

Along with citizens using their own phones to record public officials on duty.

Imagine the police chief coming out after the family was crying about the cop murdering a nice, young boy with dash or body cam footage showing the kid going for the gun. Do you think these riots would be happening then?


----------



## SG_Player1974

People tend to forget that there IS a reason why our police force is dressed in kevlar body aromor, riot helmets, and carrying AR-15s. That would be because the scum that roam the streets have armor pircing rounds, body aromor of their own, and assault rifles/machine guns TOO!!!!!

Dont blame the police for using what they can to protect themselves AND YOU!!!


----------



## SG_Player1974

Chris0nllyn said:


> Imagine the police chief coming out after the family was crying about the cop murdering a nice, young boy with dash or body cam footage showing the kid going for the gun. Do you think these riots would be happening then?



YEP!

Who said that the reasons for these idiots to loot, steal, and commit further crimes needs to be a legitimate one?


----------



## LibertyBeacon

vraiblonde said:


> Oh stop it.  Do you really want cameras all over the place, constantly watching us like Big Brother?  If cops were all equipped with cameras to spy on us every second of the day you would lose your mind.



I have no problem with cameras in public because going in public is a choice I have.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> Do you think these riots would be happening then?



Of course they would be.  Those people don't give a damn about facts or what really happened.  They didn't wait around to find that out, they just heard some black person got shot by a cop and they started busting up the place.


----------



## SG_Player1974

LibertyBeacon said:


> I have no problem with cameras in public because going in public is a choice I have.



Absolutely....

I mean who needs modern medicine, groceries, sunlight, fresh air, etc.


----------



## Gilligan

SG_Player1974 said:


> People tend to forget that there IS a reason why our police force is dressed in kevlar body aromor, riot helmets, and carrying AR-15s. That would be because the scum that roam the streets have armor pircing rounds, body aromor of their own, and assault rifles/machine guns TOO!!!!!
> 
> !



Oh really.  And there are other studies the show the same..the huge disconnect between the hype and hysteria of that anti-2A crowd and actual crime statistics. 



> In the 1991 BJS Survey of State
> Inmates, about 8% of the inmates
> reported that they had owned a
> military-type weapon, such as an Uzi,
> AK-47, AR-15, or M-16. Less than
> 1% said that they carried such a
> weapon when they committed the
> incident for which they were incarcer-
> ated. A Virginia inmate survey con-
> ducted between November 1992 and
> May 1993 found similar results:
> About 10% of the adult inmates re-
> ported that they had ever possessed
> an assault rifle, but none had carried
> it at the scene of a crime.





http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF


----------



## Chris0nllyn

SG_Player1974 said:


> YEP!
> 
> Who said that the reasons for these idiots to loot, steal, and commit further crimes needs to be a legitimate one?



I won't argue that the folks doing the looting now wouldn't normally be law-abiding, tax paying, church goers, but if the chief had solid proof that this wasn't some Trayvon-like cold-blooded "murder" (like the protestors believe), the protests wouldn't be happening, or they'd realize they're all a bunch of fools, and go home. That's really the only reason this started. I don't think this was just this incident though. I think this was just the tipping point. 

Crime in Ferguson has been declining for the last decade and a half (getting close to the national average).

http://www.city-data.com/city/Ferguson-Missouri.html

Also, blacks make up two-thirds of the population, they are twice as likely to be stopped by police as whites, 80% of stops are of black residents, and they account for 93% of arrests and 92% of searches. This despite cops finding contraband on 34$ of whites stopped but only 22% of blacks, according to a racial profiling report from the Missouri's attorney general last year.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...erguson-missouri-shooting-20140811-story.html


----------



## GURPS

Hijinx said:


> They do not stop the riots , nor do they even try.
> They do not make massive arrests , and they do not shoot looters.




the LA Riots went on for DAYS ..... Koreatown Store Owners had to gurad their own stores


----------



## mamatutu

Ferguson, Mo. -- Police in St. Louis County, Missouri say an officer shot and critically wounded a suspect early Wednesday very near Ferguson, the suburb of the city of St. Louis where a fatal weekend police shooting sparked two nights of violent protests.

 CBS affiliate KMOV-TV in St. Louis reports that St. Louis County police spokesman Brian Schellman said officers responded to a report of four men wearing ski masks armed with shotguns a block or two east of Ferguson, as well as reports of shots fired in the area.

 When they arrived, they found more than two dozen suspects fleeing on foot, Schellman said.

 At one point, an officer confronted a suspect who pulled a handgun on the officer, according to the police spokesman.

 MORE: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-police-shooting-near-tense-missouri-town/


----------



## SG_Player1974

Gilligan said:


> Oh really.  And there are other studies the show the same..the huge disconnect between the hype and hysteria of that anti-2A crowd and actual crime statistics.




#1 I am NOT anti-2A. Just because I personally do not like guns does NOT mean I am against them or others having the right to have them.

#2 I really do not find 20 year old studies based on the tales of convicted inmates as being the most reliable source.

I equate police work with computer technology. Either you keep up with the times and constantly upgrade to the latest thing OR you end up falling behind. In this case falling behind means that you can DIE!


----------



## Chris0nllyn

GURPS said:


> the LA Riots went on for DAYS ..... Koreatown Store Owners had to gurad their own stores



They're doing it here also.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/da...iness_owners_some_armed_survey_the_damage.php

http://www.westernjournalism.com/armed-employees-unite-defend-stores-looters/


----------



## GURPS

Chris0nllyn said:


> They're doing it here also.





I read an article stating 'assault rifles' were the only way the store owners pushed back the mob of rioters ..... firing some 200 times in the air


----------



## Gilligan

SG_Player1974 said:


> #2 I really do not find 20 year old studies based on the tales of convicted inmates as being the most reliable source.



Stand by..I'll go find a bunch of newer ones and link them. The gun preferences of criminals have not changed.  The number of automatic weapons possessed or used is miniscule; but the anti-2A BS plastered all over the interwebz leads some to believe otherwise.  An very interesting recent report from LA a couple years back showed that out of the rather astonishing number of guns confiscated through LE activities, most focused on gangs, almost none were of the automatic type.  I'll be sure to find that one too.

It just chaps my butt to see how often the anti-2A agitators (or ignorant pandering politicians, but that's often redundant) use the term "automatic rifle" or "machine gun" in their diatribes, when in actual fact, neither hardly exist in the criminal world (or outside of it) and are very seldom ever used in a crime. BUT..then they go ahead and make the crazy leap from that utterly false proposition to using it as a justification to ban so-called "assault rifles". Of course that term "Assault Rifles" is nuts too; what other kind of rifle is there???


----------



## LibertyBeacon

vraiblonde said:


> Okay, so you think that the media is making up stories of rioting and looting?



I'm not really saying that, not with any sense of authority anyway. I am saying there is a possibility, and stories like this demand a high degree of skepticism. You are aware of that CNN whistleblower (Amber Lyon perhaps was her name?) who dropped the bomb that a large proportion of media income is from private sources -- people, corporations, governments, NOT to run stories or aspects of stories, yes? Many have wondered how media will survive in this internet everything is free to consume world, I guess we know the new business model.

I'll post another story shortly in politics that further illustrates.


----------



## Hijinx

The gun stores are not sad about the riots---gun sales are through the roof.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_f3e99891-8111-5f3e-a159-c94ad7834a72.html

Rioters start moving into the wrong neighborhoods and they are going to be stopped. People have had enough of this BS.


----------



## glhs837

LibertyBeacon said:


> I'm not really saying that, not with any sense of authority anyway. I am saying there is a possibility, and stories like this demand a high degree of skepticism. You are aware of that CNN whistleblower (Amber Lyon perhaps was her name?) who* dropped the bomb that a large proportion of media income is from private sources -- people, corporations, governments, NOT to run stories* or aspects of stories, yes? Many have wondered how media will survive in this internet everything is free to consume world, I guess we know the new business model.
> 
> I'll post another story shortly in politics that further illustrates.





Got a quote on that, Skippy? From what I see, she accused one network, that would be one, of not giving her story airtime because the subject was a paying customer of that network. It's certainly a major leap to go from "CNN takes advertising dollars from Bahrain and so didn't play my piece" to "the majority of media income is being paid to bury stories". 


I'll note she made those accusation on the infowars website. That bastion of reality, Alex Jones still runs that conspiracy theorists dream, right? Come'on, admit you're a conspiracy theorist wackjob. none of this "Weeeeeellllllll I'm just saying" crap, man up and spout your belief. Oh, and your whistleblower? Where is she now? Running an advocacy for psychedelic drugs. You cant stand to debate with facts, can you? 

http://reset.me/


----------



## GURPS

Hijinx said:


> Rioters start moving into the wrong neighborhoods and they are going to be stopped. People have had enough of this BS.




a story was recounted to me, in the late 1970's, about the DC Riots in 1968 ....

1) in Bryan's Road someone was passing M1s out, off the pack of a truck with Ammo ...
2) 'They' can burn down their own neighborhoods, but they had best stay insde the beltway


----------



## Gilligan

GURPS said:


> a story was recounted to me, in the late 1970's, about the DC Riots in 1968 ....
> 
> 1) in Bryan's Road someone was passing M1s out, off the pack of a truck with Ammo ...
> 2) 'They' can burn down their own neighborhoods, but they had best stay insde the beltway



I was a young lad living in rural Howard County at the time. Our neighbors held a meeting with my father in our farmhouse kitchen that I will never forget..a bunch of farmers (every one of them a vet) planning strategy to protect the local area. Arms were never an issue...everyone had plenty of those back in those days.

They set up pickets at various locations out towards DC and set up watches.


----------



## Gilligan

Tacticool rules

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/08/paramilitary-police-are-changing-law-enforcement-in-the-suburbs/375855/


----------



## glhs837

See, that thing is a bit of BS, Gil. So, the county, seeing a large protest, "dispatched" the vehicles. Now, not sure how big STL county is, but that could simply mean these things were 30-40 miles away and they prepositioned them closer. I don't see pics of them looming over protesters, do you? Also, that second pic, showing "SWAT". Looks like normal officers in riot gear, like any place that has seen public demonstrations go bad, note it was taken 1am on Monday, after the destruction and burning had begun. 

Dont get me wrong, I cast a wary eye over the hardening of local departments, and using tactical teams to take in Land Rovers with bad VINs, but I'm certainly not averse to them meeting unrest with the tools and vehicles to outmatch mass thuggery.


----------



## Gilligan

glhs837 said:


> See, that thing is a bit of BS, Gil. So, the county, seeing a large protest, "dispatched" the vehicles. Now, not sure how big STL county is, but that could simply mean these things were 30-40 miles away and they prepositioned them closer. I don't see pics of them looming over protesters, do you? Also, that second pic, showing "SWAT". Looks like normal officers in riot gear, like any place that has seen public demonstrations go bad, note it was taken 1am on Monday, after the destruction and burning had begun.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I cast a wary eye over the hardening of local departments, and using tactical teams to take in Land Rovers with bad VINs, but I'm certainly not averse to them meeting unrest with the tools and vehicles to outmatch mass thuggery.



I was simply admiring all their gear. You can never have too much MOLLE..


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Audio tapes released.

At around the 11:15 mark, they call the shooting in as a "crowd control problem". They do not mention the shooting, and no EMS was called. The dispatcher says she heard it on the "news".


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> "crown control problem"



Prince Harry acting up again?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-police-arrest-two-reporters-tried-film-them-012627292.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html


----------



## Gilligan

Chris0nllyn said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-police-arrest-two-reporters-tried-film-them-012627292.html
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html




Bonehead stupid move. You would think that LE departments countrywide would be better trained to avoid that kind of mistake...yet they keep making it over and over again. And have their collective arses handed to them afterward, in court and in the court of public opinion.


----------



## GW8345

Chris0nllyn said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-police-arrest-two-reporters-tried-film-them-012627292.html
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html



And people wonder why some of the public distrust the police.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-police-arrest-two-reporters-tried-film-them-012627292.html
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html



Yeah, it's probably a rilly great idea to waltz into a riot zone and start giving the cops a bunch of crap.

Chris, you fear and loathe the police; I fear and loathe the media a hell of a lot more.  Cops don't actively cause riots; the media does.  They have WAY too much power in this country, especially since we're such a nation of idiots who can't think for ourselves.


----------



## Homeland

Gilligan said:


> Bonehead stupid move. You would think that LE departments countrywide would be better trained to avoid that kind of mistake...yet they keep making it over and over again. And have their collective arses handed to them afterward, in court and in the court of public opinion.



I watched the video.  I don't know why they were clearing out the McDonalds, but lets assume they had permission or valid reason to do so.  In that case, and IN THE VIDEO provided, I don't have much of a problem with what the cop did.  He obviously asked him to leave prior to him turning the camera on, he didn't tell him he couldn't record him and the guy was being a d1ck by dragging his heals and not moving.  Is there anything else on this other than these reporters editorial comments?


----------



## Gilligan

Homeland said:


> I watched the video.  I don't know why they were clearing out the McDonalds, but lets assume they had permission or valid reason to do so.  In that case, and IN THE VIDEO provided, I don't have much of a problem with what the cop did.  He obviously asked him to leave prior to him turning the camera on, he didn't tell him he couldn't record him and the guy was being a d1ck by dragging his heals and not moving.  Is there anything else on this other than these reporters editorial comments?



I'll bite..other than reporters, who do you think would/could provide "anything else on this"?  Perhaps you could explain how "turning the camera on" is in any way a factor? Simply assuming that they had some pressing reason to clear out a retail business establishment like that...you don't consider that a stretch?  You would assume the cops were acting properly but openly question what the reporters did.


----------



## GW8345

vraiblonde said:


> Yeah, it's probably a rilly great idea to waltz into a riot zone and start giving the cops a bunch of crap.
> 
> Chris, you fear and loathe the police; I fear and loathe the media a hell of a lot more.  Cops don't actively cause riots; the media does.  They have WAY too much power in this country, especially since we're such a nation of idiots who can't think for ourselves.



How did they give the cops a bunch of crap, also, how else are they supposed to report on the riots if they can't go into the area?

I'm not a fan of the media either but to say the media causes riots is ludicrous at best. Those reporters were well within their rights and if the events happened the way the reporters stated the police had no right to detain them, to me, this is a case of abuse of power.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Yeah, it's probably a rilly great idea to waltz into a riot zone and start giving the cops a bunch of crap.
> 
> Chris, you fear and loathe the police; I fear and loathe the media a hell of a lot more.  Cops don't actively cause riots; the media does.  They have WAY too much power in this country, especially since we're such a nation of idiots who can't think for ourselves.



i think if you look a little deep you might see that the police actions are what caused this riot....

I was watching last night when a reporter was told to stop recording police 'dispersing' a crowd on an open street/sidewalk. When he refused the police accosted him and blocked his view. After being threatened with arrest the reporter pretended to turn off the camera and resumed filming when the cop left.

I have a real issue with police that feel they can threaten the media for recording what they are doing. If they aren't doing anything wrong what are they worried about?


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> If they aren't doing anything wrong what are they worried about?



They are worried about the way the press clips and edits video, and presents it as something it's not, so people like you all can get all wild-eyed and outraged.  They probably hate dealing with any black person at this point because anything they do can be perceived as racism, bringing the wrath of liberal America down on them.  

You people just believe everything the media jams down your throat, then you have the nerve to call anyone else a sheep.  Some dipsh*t "reporter" - or even worse, some half retarded blogger living in his parents' basement - says, "Here, stupid, believe this."  And you go, "Oooh!  Shiny!  I believe!  I believe!"  You don't even question it.  Then you get all ridiculous when someone ELSE dares to question it.

Mindless drones.  That is what you all are.  It should embarrass you to be manipulated like that.


----------



## vraiblonde

Gilligan said:


> Simply assuming that they had some pressing reason to clear out a retail business establishment like that...you don't consider that a stretch?  You would assume the cops were acting properly but openly question what the reporters did.



Are they or are they not in a riot zone?


----------



## GW8345

vraiblonde said:


> They are worried about the way the press clips and edits video, and presents it as something it's not, so people like you all can get all wild-eyed and outraged.  They probably hate dealing with any black person at this point because anything they do can be perceived as racism, bringing the wrath of liberal America down on them.
> 
> You people just believe everything the media jams down your throat, then you have the nerve to call anyone else a sheep.  Some dipsh*t "reporter" - or even worse, some half retarded blogger living in his parents' basement - says, "Here, stupid, believe this."  And you go, "Oooh!  Shiny!  I believe!  I believe!"  You don't even question it.  Then you get all ridiculous when someone ELSE dares to question it.
> 
> Mindless drones.  That is what you all are.  It should embarrass you to be manipulated like that.



Yet you will believe everything the police say without question.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> They are worried about the way the press clips and edits video, and presents it as something it's not, so people like you all can get all wild-eyed and outraged.  They probably hate dealing with any black person at this point because anything they do can be perceived as racism, bringing the wrath of liberal America down on them.
> 
> You people just believe everything the media jams down your throat, then you have the nerve to call anyone else a sheep.  Some dipsh*t "reporter" - or even worse, some half retarded blogger living in his parents' basement - says, "Here, stupid, believe this."  And you go, "Oooh!  Shiny!  I believe!  I believe!"  You don't even question it.  Then you get all ridiculous when someone ELSE dares to question it.
> 
> Mindless drones.  That is what you all are.  It should embarrass you to be manipulated like that.



:BS:

if anything the video would exonerate them if they aren't doing anything wrong.


and you seem to be projecting an awful lot onto me. I certainly dont beleive everything the media 'jams down my throat', but i am also not so niave as to think the the police are always faultless. The fact that the police threaten media with arresst for filming them, when that is not illegal, tells a lot about how these police view thewmselves; above the law.


----------



## Homeland

Gilligan said:


> I'll bite..other than reporters, who do you think would/could provide "anything else on this"?  Perhaps you could explain how "turning the camera on" is in any way a factor? Simply assuming that they had some pressing reason to clear out a retail business establishment like that...you don't consider that a stretch?  You would assume the cops were acting properly but openly question what the reporters did.



I think the reporters have the ability to go back and interview independent witnesses on camera.  What is it you are saying a stretch?  I said I don't know what the reason they had the people clear out.  I don't know if the business owner asked them to or some other reason.  I'm not assuming the cops acted properly, I am saying I don't see what they did wrong on the video.  I'm open to seeing something eles if you have it.  Tell me what was on the video I missed.


----------



## glhs837

Midnightrider said:


> i think if you look a little deep* you might see that the police actions are what caused this riot....*
> 
> I was watching last night when a reporter was told to stop recording police 'dispersing' a crowd on an open street/sidewalk. When he refused the police accosted him and blocked his view. After being threatened with arrest the reporter pretended to turn off the camera and resumed filming when the cop left.
> 
> I have a real issue with police that feel they can threaten the media for recording what they are doing. If they aren't doing anything wrong what are they worried about?




Really, what do you have to back that up. there was a peaceful protest that turned into a bunch of hooligans looting businesses. How do you equate the police watching over a peaceful protest iinto the police causing the riot? What specific action did they do that caused it?


----------



## Midnightrider

glhs837 said:


> Really, what do you have to back that up. there was a peaceful protest that turned into a bunch of hooligans looting businesses. How do you equate the police watching over a peaceful protest iinto the police causing the riot? What specific action did they do that caused it?



what police actions were being protested? lets start there......


----------



## Gilligan

Homeland said:


> I think the reporters have the ability to go back and interview independent witnesses on camera.  .



Eventually they might..but that's a stretch too. How would you track down the patrons in a McDonalds you had left hours or even days earlier?  Bottom line is simple: Once again, inadequately trained LEOs are forcing people to stop perfectly legal activities; specifically the filming and recording of their LE activities. It keeps happening time and again...always with various negative consequences for the LEOs.  When you know that poking yourself in the eye witha sharp stick is gonna hurt..why keep doing it over and over again??

Just to be clear..I'm pretty much on the side of law enforcement out there. I just can't understand why resort to thuggish and stupid chit when all its going to do is bite them in the arse..so easy to NOT do that crap.


----------



## Homeland

Gilligan said:


> Eventually they might..but that's a stretch too. How would you track down the patrons in a McDonalds you had left hours or even days earlier?  Bottom line is simple: Once again, inadequately trained LEOs are forcing people to stop perfectly legal activities; specifically the filming and recording of their activities. It keeps happening time and again...always with various negative consequences for the LEOs.  When you know that poking yourself in the eye witha sharp stick is gonna hurt..why keep doing it over and over again??



In the video, I didn't see any patrons, just employees.  That's pretty simple to track them down.  Go to their place of employment.  

Where did the cop force this guy to stop videoing?  He told him to leave.  I heard the cop tell him to stop video taping, but that I think is a little out of context.  In the same breath he was telling him to leave.  It was "stop video taping and lets go".  The cop didn't make an issue of the video.  How was the cop inadequately trained.  He wasn't saying video taping him is against the law.  He wanted the guy to move.  Again, I'm open to be shown where I am wrong about this, but I am not seeing it in the video.


----------



## Homeland

Gilligan said:


> Eventually they might..but that's a stretch too. How would you track down the patrons in a McDonalds you had left hours or even days earlier?  Bottom line is simple: Once again, inadequately trained LEOs are forcing people to stop perfectly legal activities; specifically the filming and recording of their LE activities. It keeps happening time and again...always with various negative consequences for the LEOs.  When you know that poking yourself in the eye witha sharp stick is gonna hurt..why keep doing it over and over again??
> 
> Just to be clear..I'm pretty much on the side of law enforcement out there. I just can't understand why resort to thuggish and stupid chit when all its going to do is bite them in the arse..so easy to NOT do that crap.



I think this is a matter of interpretation.  You see this cop being upset with him video taping, I see this cop telling him to stop doing what ever he is doing and clear.  I see the activity the guy doing being video taping.  In my opinion, I think if the guy were writing, sitting, talking on the phone....or what ever, the cop would have told him to stop doing that and get moving.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

vraiblonde said:


> Are they or are they not in a riot zone?



There was no rioting last night.


----------



## Gilligan

Homeland said:


> Is there anything else on this other than these reporters editorial comments?



LMAO. OK..I get ya.


----------



## GW8345

For the record, I think anyone rioting/lootings should be shot, however, I don't think the strong arm tactics against innocent civilians is appropriate and does not enhance their image, especially after the original reason for the demonstrations/riots.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> and you seem to be projecting an awful lot onto me.



The "you" was not you personally - it was directed at you all.  I should specify that, I know.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> There was no rioting last night.



That wasn't the question I asked.


----------



## kwillia

vraiblonde said:


> That wasn't the question I asked.


I suppose the police are supposed to know beforehand whether or not another riot is expected to flare up... silly them for just showing up willy-nilly.


----------



## vraiblonde

kwillia said:


> I suppose the police are supposed to know beforehand whether or not another riot is expected to flare up... silly them for just showing up willy-nilly.



That, and if the media were more responsible and didn't twist their reporting to suit a rabble rousing agenda, perhaps the cops wouldn't mind having them around recording.


----------



## GW8345

vraiblonde said:


> That, and if the media were more responsible and didn't twist their reporting to suit a rabble rousing agenda, perhaps the cops wouldn't mind having them around recording.



Or maybe the cops don't want the media reporting on what they are really doing and their heavy handed tactics against innocent civilians.


----------



## glhs837

Midnightrider said:


> what police actions were being protested? lets start there......




Yep, that man being shot was the cause of the protest. And he was shot by an officer. Roger all that. That is certainly cause for protest. No issue with that, the right of peaceable assembly runs pretty damn deep. When the citizens feel wronged, they can assemble to air their grievances.  Were citizens practicing that right teargassed or or beaten? Ah, no, other peoples rights to be secure in their property were violated. by folk NOT peaceably protesting anything, but rather using that protest as a cover to be criminals. Lets be clear, the polices action, in the shooting and since are NOT an excuse to be a criminal. Two wrongs don't make a right. So, while the police DID cause the protest. the protest isn't the issue. And part of the problem is the press conflating the protest with the criminal activity.


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> That, and if the media were more responsible and didn't twist their reporting to suit a rabble rousing agenda, perhaps the cops wouldn't mind having them around recording.



Have you seen any reports from the two journalists who were arrested?  I haven't..and haven't taken the time to look for any yet either.  Or were you implying that the cops were simply operating from an "any media = bad people" standpoint and so they (all reporters) are all fair game for strong-arm tactics?


----------



## Amused_despair

vraiblonde said:


> That, and if the media were more responsible and didn't twist their reporting to suit a rabble rousing agenda, perhaps the cops wouldn't mind having them around recording.



When i see these threads with people defending police going after people who are trying to record them while they are arresting people all i can think of is the words of the great American patriot, Frank Burns: "The way I see it, unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."


----------



## vraiblonde

Gilligan said:


> Have you seen any reports from the two journalists who were arrested?  I haven't..and haven't taken the time to look for any yet either.  Or were you implying that the cops were simply operating from an "any media = bad people" standpoint and so they (all reporters) are all fair game for strong-arm tactics?



They are probably wary of all press, I would guess.

Everyone knows the media is biased.  Everyone knows that they only publicize what suits them.  Everyone knows that they spin stories and edit images to shape public opinion.  Everyone knows this.

So why do you all continue to blindly and unwaveringly believe them when you know they lie?  Don't you find this onslaught of portraying cops as jackbooted thugs even remotely suspicious?


----------



## Amused_despair

have you been following the stories for the last few years about police becomong more and more militarized?


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> So why do you all continue to blindly and unwaveringly believe them when you know they lie?  Don't you find this onslaught of portraying cops as jackbooted thugs even remotely suspicious?



Speaking only for myself, I have media sources I trust, but they are admittedly few. My personal issue with this incident - this kind of police thuggery (yes, thuggery. They made thuggish, some almost playground-level,  threats, they hid their identities, they didn't file any charges; they were only intent on harassment and intimidation...and so on) - is that it is a recurring jackboot thing, across the country, and recurring with increasing frequency. I see a malignant cancer spreading and it disturbs me greatly.


----------



## Misfit

Anonymous scares me...


----------



## Amused_despair

Anonymous said they were going after the police department in Ferguson, they have already been posting photos from the policechief's facebook account and  such.


----------



## Toxick

vraiblonde said:


> That, and if the media were more responsible and didn't twist their reporting to suit a rabble rousing agenda, perhaps the cops wouldn't mind having them around recording.





GW8345 said:


> Or maybe the cops don't want the media reporting on what they are really doing and their heavy handed tactics against innocent civilians.







I fail to see any logic which concludes that these two concepts are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

vraiblonde said:


> They are probably wary of all press, I would guess.
> 
> Everyone knows the media is biased.  Everyone knows that they only publicize what suits them.  Everyone knows that they spin stories and edit images to shape public opinion.  Everyone knows this.
> 
> So why do you all continue to blindly and unwaveringly believe them when you know they lie?  Don't you find this onslaught of portraying cops as jackbooted thugs even remotely suspicious?



There's a difference between watching this on NBC 4, and following the various twitter feeds showing actual footage from actual people that are there. Along with video. Video that isn't biased.

Isn't it a bit funny that you are chastising folks for blindly believing what they read, when just recently you posted a story from a satire website believing it to be true?

Give me a break. We all agree that the looters and rioters there are bad news. No one, including the kid's parents want this to happen. Anyone caught looting should be arrested and charged. That's not what we're seeing though. 

We're seeing snipers trained on unarmed AMERICAN civilians. We're seeing police forces more decked out in tacticool gear than guys in Iraq. We're seeing police shoot rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds exercising THEIR RIGHT to assemble (while they announce on loud speakers that "your right to assembly is not being violated"). We're seeing lines of officers pointing their guns at unarmed civilians. 

We're seeing a ####ing war zone, and it's not making things better.



Misfit said:


> Anonymous scares me...



Police chief has already come out and said it was wrong. That is not a Ferguson cop.

But I heard that through the media, so they probably spun it that way.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> Isn't it a bit funny that you are chastising folks for blindly believing what they read, when just recently you posted a story from a satire website believing it to be true?



There's a big difference in that the fake story didn't color my outlook on police, or moms, or babies in general.  You all grab these stories that are sensationalized and not more than a little bit incomplete, and you use them to make your "point" that all cops are violent bullies who live only to bust the head of some innocent citizen who's just minding their own business.

True, unless we can teleport around the world on a whim, we only know what the media chooses to report.  But just a bit of skepticism would do you well when it comes to this stuff.  You WANT to believe that all cops are head busting thugs who kick open doors and shoot dogs and children.  That's why you don't consider that there may be more to the story.

And that is what the media wants you to believe, and why they don't bother to tell you the whole situation.  The other party "couldn't be reached for comment", or they "didn't respond to requests for an interview".  They know damn well what they're doing when they say that:  that readers will ASSume the other party is stonewalling and won't talk to the press because they have something to hide.  In reality, many times the reporter didn't make any real effort to get a statement or they sent an email right before deadline so the other party didn't have time to respond.

I've worked in media my whole adult life.  I know the bullsh*t they pull.

Again, the riots and ensuing police presence are the fault of the rioters and nobody else.  If the cops are there in riot gear....well, guess what?  That is appropriate attire for a riot.  They look menacing because they're supposed to.  They feel they have cause to bust sh*t up - good for them, but the riot is still their fault.


----------



## rdytogo

Chris0nllyn said:


> Isn't it a bit funny that you are chastising folks for blindly believing what they read, when just recently you posted a story from a satire website believing it to be true?
> 
> We're seeing snipers trained on unarmed AMERICAN civilians. We're seeing police forces more decked out in tacticool gear than guys in Iraq. We're seeing police shoot rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds exercising THEIR RIGHT to assemble (while they announce on loud speakers that "your right to assembly is not being violated"). We're seeing lines of officers pointing their guns at unarmed civilians.



How do you know the civilians were unarmed?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

rdytogo said:


> How do you know the civilians were unarmed?



They are holding both their hands in the air...


----------



## vraiblonde

Amused_despair said:


> have you been following the stories for the last few years about police becomong more and more militarized?



That's because the criminals they're up against are more and more heavily armed.  

I wish you all actually knew a few cops.  Then you could see that they're human beings doing a job, not battle droids blindly taking orders from the Emperor.


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> They are holding both their hands in the air...



That doesn't mean they were unarmed, Chris.  It just means they weren't at that second actively pointing a gun at anyone.


----------



## Misfit

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...vilians-from-Buying-Body-Armor-270223431.html



> Rep. Mike Honda Introduces Bill Banning Civilians from Buying Body Armor



It will be easier for Police to kill unarmed civilians in California now.


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> That's because the criminals they're up against are more and more heavily armed.
> 
> I wish you all actually knew a few cops.  Then you could see that they're human beings doing a job, not battle droids blindly taking orders from the Emperor.



I've seen nothing in all the studies I've read that indicates anything has gotten worse, with respect to the firearms used by criminals, for several decades now. The sea change actually occurred during the 80s.

And some of my best friends and family are (or are retired) LEOs..county, state, Secret Service. That includes one who is currently a member of the SMC equivalent of a SWAT unit.


----------



## rdytogo

Chris0nllyn said:


> They are holding both their hands in the air...



I didn't know that was the factor in determining a person doesn't have a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM


----------



## rdytogo

Chris0nllyn said:


> Police chief has already come out and said it was wrong. That is not a Ferguson cop.



Could you elaberate on this or provide the link?


----------



## glhs837

Hey, Chis, hows about some links?


----------



## GW8345

rdytogo said:


> Could you elaberate on this or provide the link?





glhs837 said:


> Hey, Chis, hows about some links?



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...uson-police-officer-in-michaelbrown-shooting/


----------



## Chris0nllyn

rdytogo said:


> I didn't know that was the factor in determining a person doesn't have a gun.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM



It should be a determining factor if someone, especially a police officer, has a gun pointed at you though, no?

That is, after all, how this whole got started. Citizens perceived the idea that Brown was holding his hand up (verified by 2 witnesses) when he was shot. Hence everyone holding their hands up.



rdytogo said:


> Could you elaberate on this or provide the link?



Not sure how much more I could elaborate, but the Police Chief said that the name Anonymous sent out wasn't the correct cop. 

Though, I don't think he would say, "yep, that's the guy". 



> However, the St. Louis County Police Department responded that the name the group posted is false. The department tells the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the name Anonymous released is not a Ferguson or a St. Louis County police officer.



http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08...-officer-they-say-fatally-shot-michael-brown/


----------



## GURPS

Lets Bring in the UN ..... 


*NAACP: MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING 'FRONT AND CENTER' AT THE UNITED NATIONS*


U.S. civil rights advocates aired their concerns about the recent Michael Brown shooting to the United Nations in Geneva, according to a press call from the organizations on Wednesday.
“This issue was front and center,” Hilary O. Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Bureau, explained during the call.
According to Shelton, Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton and Jordan Davis’s father Ron Davis told their stories about losing their teenage children in shootings in each of the pre-briefings of the process.
“I think that everyone was outraged and horrified to hear that, yet again, it had happened in St. Louis, Missouri,” he said.
The group of activists presented to a U.N. panel in Geneva, Switzerland, documenting their concerns of U.S. compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) treaty.
Hillary also pointed out that U.N. delegates at the hearing made a point of asking the U.S. delegation about African-Americans being “disportionately targeted” by law enforcement.


----------



## GURPS

Yeah this will Help 




HOLDER DISPATCHES TEAM THAT 'INFLAMED' TRAYVON CASE
Justice Department intervening in racially charged Ferguson shooting

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/holder-dispatches-team-that-inflamed-trayvon-case/#kDmeSKfopBq1KSmj.99


----------



## Chris0nllyn

glhs837 said:


> Hey, Chis, hows about some links?



About what?


----------



## Gilligan

Chief-of-Police-in-Chief weighs on the matter.  Love that guy. 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-on-ferguson-police-should-not-be-bullying-and-arresting-reporters/


----------



## Hijinx

HTML:
	

The group of activists presented to a U.N. panel in Geneva, Switzerland, documenting their concerns of U.S. compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) treaty.


How is that working out is South Africa????

""U.S. civil rights advocates aired their concerns about the recent Michael Brown shooting to the United Nations in Geneva, according to a press call from the organizations on Wednesday.""

Not happy that we have a black racist President and Attorney General these  Azzholes want to get the UN involved in our business,.

""Hillary also pointed out that U.N. delegates at the hearing made a point of asking the U.S. delegation about African-Americans being “disportionately targeted” by law enforcement.""

Hillary scumbucket did not mention the fact that African Americans are disproportionately committing the crimes and killing other black Americans did she??  No I wouldn't think she would , she is too busy suckiong up to the blacks for their 2016 votes.   Witch .

The UN has no say in this while they stand by and watch what is happening in Muslim countries, where children are being beheaded, and women are being stoned. In South Africa where whites are told they cannot own land. On the African Coast where pirates are hijacking ships.

The UN should have plenty to do besides listening to a group of racist blacks crying about how tough it is to live in America where blacks live better than anywhere else in the world.


----------



## GURPS

Hijinx said:


> Hillary scumbucket did not mention the fact that African Americans are disproportionately committing the crimes and killing other black Americans did she??  No I wouldn't think she would , she is too busy suckiong up to the blacks for their 2016 votes.   Witch .





that's Racist


----------



## Hijinx

GURPS said:


> that's Racist



Yeah that accusation keeps me awake nights.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

> A news crew, clearly no threat or impediment to the cops, films from a verge in Ferguson, Missouri. A pop and a cloud of white smoke marks the arrival of a tear gas canister at their feet, and the newscrew is forced to flee. Moments later, police pull up in an armored van and hurriedly try to break down the film equipment--until they notice that another crew is still filming them from across the street.



http://boingboing.net/2014/08/14/video-of-ferguson-police-gassi.html


----------



## BigBlue

Hijinx said:


> Yeah that accusation keeps me awake nights.




It would if you were smart enough to know what the word means .


----------



## MrZ06

High Five


----------



## Hijinx

BigBlue said:


> It would if you were smart enough to know what the word means .



I am sure it doesn't keep you awake and you are more racist than I.  Or does it?

Or are you one of those idiots who don't believe blacks can be racist.


----------



## Hijinx

Chris0nllyn said:


> http://boingboing.net/2014/08/14/video-of-ferguson-police-gassi.html



By the way I am sure the police were just taking that stuff down to save it from being damaged by rioters.  (S)


----------



## BOP

Gilligan said:


> Bonehead stupid move. You would think that LE departments countrywide would be better trained to avoid that kind of mistake...yet they keep making it over and over again. And have their collective arses handed to them afterward, in court and in the court of public opinion.



http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/0...-of-military-armed-police-in-ferguson/376071/ 
_
As the crisis in Ferguson has shown, one issue with the militarization of the police is that military gear doesn't come with military training. The U.S. Army's handbook on civil disturbances states in no uncertain terms that the way that the approach that authorities take to crowd control can worsen a crisis—a factor that the St. Louis County Police Department apparently did not take into consideration. "During planning, leaders must consider that the crowd may become more combative with the arrival of a response force," the guidelines explain._


----------



## Gilligan

BOP said:


> [ one issue with the militarization of the police is that military gear doesn't come with military training.



Huge duh!   The vet with four tours that becomes a LEO is probably surrounded by more high-school grads that passed the country physical, got the basic LEO training and volunteered for their department' "SWAT" unit. Do they then receive additional training..usually, yes..but not a lot. Specialized training is always very expensive..while surplus gear though 1033 is not.


----------



## Gilligan

Woah!!  Stop the presses.  The weekend paintball warriors are *out*.  Breaking news...

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/14/nixon-to-relieve-st-louis-county-pd-in-ferguson/


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Gilligan said:


> Woah!!  Stop the presses.  The weekend paintball warriors are *out*.  Breaking news...
> 
> http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/14/nixon-to-relieve-st-louis-county-pd-in-ferguson/



No surprise there. They've mismanaged this entire thing from the get-go.



> Here we have a community that doesn’t see itself reflected in the police force. Ferguson is 67 percent black, while its police force is more than 90 percent white. It’s a community with long-simmering racial tension between police and the people they serve. It has now been well-reported that blacks are significantly over-represented when it comes to stop-and-frisks, traffic stops, and arrests in Ferguson, even though the town’s white residents are more likely to be caught with contraband like drugs or illegal weapons. It isn’t difficult to see why black residents of Ferguson may have already felt as if the police are an outside force that has been imposed upon them, rather than a group of public servants selected from the community to protect them from harm.
> 
> We then have an incident that represents all of these problems in a very concentrated form — an unarmed black man was killed by a (reportedly) white police officer who had stopped him as he was walking home. The police have since refused to release the officer’s name. They’ve said they have no intention of releasing the autopsy performed on Michael Brown. Police Chief Thomas Jackson refused to even say how many shots were fired at Brown. (He claimed he didn’t know, though that would be pretty easy to figure out.) Though the police department has body cameras, it hasn’t required its officers to actually wear them. All of this only adds to perception of a Ferguson Police Department that is detached, unaccountable, opaque, and unconcerned with how it is perceived by the community it serves. (Gassing, arresting, and threatening journalists doesn’t help with the perception that they feel they’re above transparency.) The police then showed up at a peaceful protest with military vehicles and weapons. If a town’s citizens are reminded over and over again that the law has no respect for them, we shouldn’t be surprised if they begin to lose respect for the law. This isn’t an excuse for the looting and rioting. But it does contextualize what we’ve seen.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rguson-how-should-police-respond-to-protests/


----------



## glhs837

Gilligan said:


> Woah!!  Stop the presses.  The weekend paintball warriors are *out*.  Breaking news...
> 
> http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/14/nixon-to-relieve-st-louis-county-pd-in-ferguson/




Seeing that Boin Boing vid, all I thought was "Holy Eff!!!!! What a bunch of assclowns, is ANYONE in charge of this fiasco?" Someone needs to take them out to the woodshed. At lunch, son and I were talking about it, and I said, that what needs to happen is that someone needs to send both sides to their corners to cool off. The protestors better not push this new set, or they will lose what public opinion they have gathered in thier favor.


----------



## Gilligan

The links are what matter here...as always.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/351170.php


----------



## GW8345

Here's a novel thought, if the cops want to act like a bunch of wanna-be soldiers why don't we just ship their ass to A-stan and they can play wanna-be soldier all they want against the terrorist.


----------



## Lurk

Chris0nllyn said:


> http://boingboing.net/2014/08/14/video-of-ferguson-police-gassi.html





> A news crew, clearly no threat or impediment to the cops, films from a verge in Ferguson, Missouri. A pop and a cloud of white smoke marks the arrival of a tear gas canister at their feet, and the newscrew is forced to flee. Moments later, police pull up in an armored van and hurriedly try to break down the film equipment--until they notice that another crew is still filming them from across the street.



At any other time people would complain that the police don't prevent crime, they only respond to crime after it happened.  Here we have police trying to prevent the theft of very expensive videotaping equipment with all the usual suspects in the neighborhood, and the press complains.


----------



## PJay

Shoot'em! Dead!

Enough is enough!


----------



## GW8345

Lurk said:


> At any other time people would complain that the police don't prevent crime, they only respond to crime after it happened.  Here we have police trying to prevent the theft of very expensive videotaping equipment with all the usual suspects in the neighborhood, and the press complains.



Then why did they stop when they noticed they were still being filmed?


----------



## Hijinx

I think the Governor is screwing up.

If I were Police Chief I would call my men off, thank the Governor and put my boys back to ticketing people not wearing seat belts.

The Governor wans to get involved, I would tell him . You got it pal. I wash my hands of it.


----------



## GURPS

Gilligan said:


> *NYT Publishes Bizarrely Despicable Cartoon*
> 
> 
> The idea that America is doing nothing to provide food to the unfortunate in America is laughable, at best. And the idea that a few million bucks worth of water drops to the Yazidis—who are facing death at the hands of barbaric Islamic militants—is taking food out of the mouths of our people is insulting and monstrous.
> 
> 
> We’ve covered the “they’re not Arabs” thing.
> 
> Screen Shot 2014-08-14 at 12.12.09 PM
> 
> False. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that all of the mountains—even all of the mountains in coal country—have been “cut for coal”? Hold on, let me Google “the rockies” for you.
> 
> But this next frame. This next frame. It’s just … well, you’ll see.
> 
> Screen Shot 2014-08-14 at 12.13.53 PM
> 
> I try to keep it clean on The Editor’s Blog, but: what the ####ing ####? Are you for serious right now, Blechman?
> 
> So lucky:
> 
> _    In an exodus of almost biblical proportions, thousands trudge across a river to escape killers belonging to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.
> 
> Entire families carry nothing but the clothes on their backs. Some are barefoot. …
> 
> Jamir said after ISIS arrived in his town, Arab neighbors of his turned on the minorities and helped ISIS kill. “They join them, and actually they kill us.”_​




that is just SO Awesome of the NYT


----------



## protectmd

What we all can agree upon is that the facts of this case are disputed by people taking both sides. This is why the DOJ/FBI and various agencies are going to use their resources to conduct a full investigation into the matter. This will most likely include an autopsy w/ toxicology report of the deceased, extensive interviewing of witnesses, of the officer, DNA swabs of the officers firearm which was being fought over and any other relevant information that may pertain to the case. 

Im sure all reasonable and sane people can agree that rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, arson, shooting at police aircraft, shooting at cops and general mayhem isn't peaceful protest. Riding around on a dirtbike with a loaded mossberg shotgun providing cover for rioters, or running through busted windows with a handgun in your waistband and your teeshirt covering your face is not lawful conduct (just a few of the community hero's I observed in various video's).

This is not peaceful assembly. The calls for more violence, getting people like the "New Black Panther Party" involved, or even calls for a re-enactment of "The Purge" on August 15th across the United States will not end well for these individuals. One can also observe that its not just "a few" individuals that are orchestrating all of this, and that its massive numbers of individuals who are becoming violently confrontational with police and destroying the community. One can also agree that if the police do nothing about the chaos, that it will continue, escalate, and bring about vigilante style behavior on both sides.... from the rioters and criminals, and also citizens who are fed up with their behavior... pitting 1 group against the other at some point. Store owners are not going to continue to take sustained losses, and other parts of the state and communities will not tolerate this type of lawless behavior. It should be dealt with accordingly. Making arrests and releasing them the next day to riot and loot again, does nothing to stop the chaos.

I personally do have a concern, about how the police have handled the incident, in the respect that they are removing their name tags so they cannot be identified, and wearing masks to hide their faces. One also has to ask what the purpose of pointing rifles with lasers at protesters that are standing their with their hands up? There are also concerns about the fact that the FAA has put a "no fly zone" restriction over the area to keep news helicopters from watching the incident from above. Its increasingly disturbing to know that the police are telling reporters not to record, in some sort of attempt to hide whats going on. If the police are doing nothing wrong, perhaps they should explain themselves on the news. The police should be filming their own version of the events as well, to protect them from civil litigation, and show the public the video of how these 'protestors' are acting. I am sure the general public might have a different opinion if the police department can show that order of events went like the following...

Large group gathers to protest.
Police gather to watch
Group starts chants, block street
Police give orders to vacate street
Group starts attack, throwing bottles, rocks, etc, damaging vehicles
police fire tear gas, rubber bullets, etc at rioters. 

Instead, theres stories of reporters being ordered to turn their cameras off, reporters being arrested and brutalized by officers, and a media "black out" where through censorship, control, etc of the area has resulted in a one sided story. I have no doubt that there is a side to the police story as well, X number of cruisers burned or damaged, X number of injuries, X number of tax dollars spent to pay overtime, cleanup, etc. The public isn't getting that side of the story if the police and government orders a "media blackout" and attempts to hide the events as they unfold. I have no doubt in my mind that after a few police cars were torched, they broke out tanks. Its a no brainer, I get that. However, if they continue to try to "hide" things, it will cost them in the giant trial by media. 

Speaking of trial by media, they are photographs surfacing of the guy who died. Theres one photograph where hes sitting there next to a liquor bottle, and has a handgun in his hand pointing it at the camera, with a wad of cash in his mouth. Now, no law abiding citizen takes photographs with booze, guns, and fat stacks of cash stuffed in your mouth, and it goes to show that this guy was not completely innocent. One has to ask, where the hell the parents are when he's out taking these photographs? While people are complaining about "If they gunned me down, which photo would they use?" Well... I think that photographs in the media are given their fair shake and its not a "black victims" issue. I am pretty sure that there was a pretty healthy amounts of Timothy McVeigh photographs laid out in the media of him wearing militia fatigues carrying various weapons, as he expressed his hate for the government. One could also take his 5th grade photo and say he was sweet innocent citizen correct? The reality is, if your taking some off the wall photographs, and you get arrested or killed in a high profile incident, expect to have ALL sides of the story told, and all photos posted for the citizens to decide. 

Society as a whole is tired of lies and the BS. Whether the lies are spouted from the politicians, political mouthpieces, activists, etc... is irrelevant. The media should not try to paint someone as a savior, a hero, some sort of martyr for the cause, or innocent person if they have some demons in their closet, especially in todays day and age. 

Something that the community needs to realize down there is they created their environment, their own problems, not the rest of the United States. If they are angry that their police chief is white, or that the majority of the police department there is white, well, the police chief is an appointed official, and perhaps they should look to their politicians to change that, if they are unhappy with the race of their police chief and department. To me, that is pretty racist, if you want to request service or demand service from an officer of a certain race. For the government to concede to such a demand, shows that they cater to racists. One also can't agree or disagree that if the department that serves a community doesn't represent the demographics they receive substandard police services. I mean, do they think things would be better off in their community if 57 of the 60 officers that worked there were black/african american? Most likely, those officers would face the same scrutiny as the white officers face now, being called names, and accusations that they aren't on "their side." The officers would be reluctant to do their jobs for fear of complaints, being fired, etc. Crime would go up as a result, and the community would still be miserable. 

All in all, I do believe that this is apart of a larger struggle within communities like this. On one side of the fence, there is a demand for "change" or "perceived change." Individuals think that police do too much, or are too proactive, and fight to make this stop. As a result, when this occurs, crime rates soar, and people who ordinarily would have gone to jail, roam the streets, continuing their crime sprees. Communities become unliveable and anger and resentment builds for authorites failure to act. The other half, see's the problems with this and fights against this. They realize that if kids are getting shot, drugs and poison is sold on playgrounds wholesale, and the whole area turns into a giant cesspool, nobody can live a decent normal life. They demand something be done about criminal behavior, and generally support police and measures to put an end to this. Somewhere tied into it all, is how police do their jobs, such as use of force policies, department hiring practices, department training, vehicle pursuit policies, stop and frisk procedures, etc, and the battle for or against these items continues within law enforcement and America as a whole. Food for thought.


----------



## Larry Gude

protectmd said:


> Something that the community needs to realize down there is they created their environment, their own problems, not the rest of the United States.  .



You were doing so well up to this. 

The 'community' didn't create the economy we have today. They didn't create the immigration situation we have nor the cost of food, $4 gas nor the paranoid 'security first, liberty last' mentality we adopted post 9/11. They didn't create the Too Big To Fail 'bail out Wall Street/Too Bad for Main street' mindset we, as a nation, have. Were 'they' part of it? Sure. Their community is a part of the whole but, to point to Ferguson, MO as ground zero of what ails us is not a very good picture. 

Barack Obama has failed, miserably, to get the economy broadly moving. He has sown and exacerbated distrust worse than any president in memory. He is a big a fan of Too Big To Fail and uncontrolled borders and totally digs assuming more and more power. He is very much a part of the problem but, many of these issues started under Bush. They just did. Unless and until we start looking at the whole, and stop washing our hands of the results of poor policies simply because we think our guy had good intentions, none of this gets fixed. 

Our world changed on 9/12/01. Liberty started taking a back seat. Personal responsibility was tossed out the window in favor of control. Trust of authority, of government, is impossible when the government does not trust the people. Economic policy becomes farce when the formula is to bail out the rich at the expense of every one else. We, as a nation, have created conditions for more and more people to have less and less to lose. We do not demand our government promote the general welfare and the middle class is disappearing. 

This mess isn't the disease. It's a symptom.


----------



## Hijinx

Larry Gude said:


> You were doing so well up to this.
> 
> The 'community' didn't create the economy we have today. They didn't create the immigration situation we have nor the cost of food, $4 gas nor the paranoid 'security first, liberty last' mentality we adopted post 9/11. They didn't create the Too Big To Fail 'bail out Wall Street/Too Bad for Main street' mindset we, as a nation, have. Were 'they' part of it? Sure. Their community is a part of the whole but, to point to Ferguson, MO as ground zero of what ails us is not a very good picture.
> 
> Barack Obama has failed, miserably, to get the economy broadly moving. He has sown and exacerbated distrust worse than any president in memory. He is a big a fan of Too Big To Fail and uncontrolled borders and totally digs assuming more and more power. He is very much a part of the problem but, many of these issues started under Bush. They just did. Unless and until we start looking at the whole, and stop washing our hands of the results of poor policies simply because we think our guy had good intentions, none of this gets fixed.
> 
> Our world changed on 9/12/01. Liberty started taking a back seat. Personal responsibility was tossed out the window in favor of control. Trust of authority, of government, is impossible when the government does not trust the people. Economic policy becomes farce when the formula is to bail out the rich at the expense of every one else. We, as a nation, have created conditions for more and more people to have less and less to lose. We do not demand our government promote the general welfare and the middle class is disappearing.
> 
> This mess isn't the disease. It's a symptom.



Facepalm.

Where was Bush ion 1968.
Where was Bush when Kennedy was shot?
Bush invented racism.

This isn't the first black riot. It won't be the last.
Bush didn't start it ,The Dutch and Northern slave traders did when they imported thousands of blacks to work on Southern plantations.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Hijinx said:


> Facepalm.



Yeah, I know. Thinking things through is really hard for your set, innit knee jerk?


----------



## Larry Gude

Hijinx said:


> Facepalm.
> 
> Where was Bush ion 1968.
> Where was Bush when Kennedy was shot?
> Bush invented racism.
> 
> This isn't the first black riot. It won't be the last.
> Bush didn't start it ,The Dutch and Northern slave traders did when they imported thousands of blacks to work on Southern plantations.



If you don't think our nation changed, a lot, if you don't think there were ENORMOUS changes in government post 9/11 we have not one thing to talk about. 

There was no Social Security to talk about before it was enacted. There was no Civil war until it happened, there was no Great Society until that happened. 

George W. Bush gave us Med D, DHS, TSA, The Patriot Act. the UAW Bailout and TARP. If your point is that those are natural progressions, nothing to see here, all normal, good stuff, then why in the flying hell would you bother objecting to the ACA or anything Obama has done? 

Either a policy is right or it is wrong. With Bush, we accepted a #### ton of wrong, all in the name of blessed security. Obama has used all those tools to their next progression of government using the power it is given. It is proper to object to HIS abuses as well. And, ideally, if we can be bothered to swallow enough of what we've done, post 9/11, what we've allowed, maybe the next President will start acting like it is a government of, by and for the people instead of one that is of, by and for the government. 

If we don't come to grips with HOW we got here, setting aside party, it ain't getting fixed and it will just continue. In which case there is no point in objecting to Obama.


----------



## Lurk

"The BDS is strong in this one."  Yoda


----------



## BOP

vraiblonde said:


> They are worried about the way the press clips and edits video, and presents it as something it's not, so people like you all can get all wild-eyed and outraged.  They probably hate dealing with any black person at this point because anything they do can be perceived as racism, bringing the wrath of liberal America down on them.
> 
> You people just believe everything the media jams down your throat, then you have the nerve to call anyone else a sheep.  Some dipsh*t "reporter" - or even worse, some half retarded blogger living in his parents' basement - says, "Here, stupid, believe this."  And you go, "Oooh!  Shiny!  I believe!  I believe!"  You don't even question it.  Then you get all ridiculous when someone ELSE dares to question it.
> 
> Mindless drones.  That is what you all are.  It should embarrass you to be manipulated like that.



On behalf of Andy Marquis, I'm offended.


----------



## nhboy

Gilligan said:


> The links are what matter here...as always.
> 
> http://ace.mu.nu/archives/351170.php



Ace of Spades lol!


----------



## Larry Gude

Midnightrider said:


> :BS:
> 
> if anything the video would exonerate them if they aren't doing anything wrong.
> 
> 
> and you seem to be projecting an awful lot onto me. I certainly dont beleive everything the media 'jams down my throat', but i am also not so niave as to think the the police are always faultless. The fact that the police threaten media with arresst for filming them, when that is not illegal, tells a lot about how these police view thewmselves; above the law.



Chick on FOX had an elegant, brilliant idea the other night; when the cops are going to do a riot thing, they should INVITE the press to come along with them.


----------



## Larry Gude

Lurk said:


> "The BDS is strong in this one."  Yoda



No. I actually think you deniers are stating to get it but, just aren't comfortable admitting it in public. That's OK. Getting it is step one out of denial.


----------



## Gilligan

nhboy said:


> Ace of Spades lol!




Links moron...links are what matter there..as always. Give it a try.


----------



## vraiblonde

protectmd said:


> Society as a whole is tired of lies and the BS.



I don't think we are.  I think we're so bored and our lives are so meaningless that we are desperate for something to latch onto that we can jump up and down about.


----------



## Larry Gude

vraiblonde said:


> I don't think we are.  I think we're so bored and our lives are so meaningless that we are desperate for something to latch onto that we can jump up and down about.



...and if we can't find something, dammit, we'll make it up!!!!


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> I don't think we are.  I think we're so bored and our lives are so meaningless that we are desperate for something to latch onto that we can jump up and down about.



Dayumn right! I even went out and bought two more pitch forks the other day..and some more oil for my torch.


----------



## GURPS

*Must We Have a Dead White Kid?*





Conservatives have long lamented the buildup of armaments and stockpiling of bullets by the Department of Homeland Security. The media has mostly treated these conservative concerns with derision. Suddenly, last week, when reporters were detained by the police in Ferguson, MO, the media had to pay attention to the militarization of the police and overkill by local police forces.

Given what happened in Ferguson, the community had every right to be angry. The police bungled their handling of the matter, became very defensive, and behaved more like a paramilitary unit than a police force. Property damage and violence by the citizenry cannot be excused, but is also the result of a community seeing those who are to protect and serve instead suiting up and playing soldier.

Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 as Reconstruction came to end. The law ended the military’s ability to enforce laws on domestic soil. The police had to be used. But since September 11, 2001, many police departments in the country have turned themselves into mini-militaries. It used to be just a SWAT team ready to take on bad guys. More and more the police are suiting up to contain and control the population they are supposed to serve. Not a week goes by without encountering horrific stories of police abuse. In Dallas, TX, the independent school district has a SWAT team. In New York, a man died after police put him in a choke hold for the high crime of selling cigarettes.


----------



## Larry Gude

Gilligan said:


> Dayumn right! I even went out and bought two more pitch forks the other day..and some more oil for my torch.



Poser. 

Anyone with new pitchforks has to go to the back of the mob.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Officer's name was released.



> Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer involved was Darren Wilson, who has been with the department for six years. Chief Jackson said Officer Wilson has had no previous history of disciplinary action, but declined to take reporters' questions at a news conference.



http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-police-identify-officer-who-fatally-shot-michael-brown-133444068.html


----------



## Gilligan

Larry Gude said:


> Poser.
> 
> Anyone with new pitchforks has to go to the back of the mob.



I'm good with that; that's where I always hang out anyway. Nobody to get in my way when it's time to cut and run.  I'm not stupid - I've watched plenty of movies where John Wayne threatens to shoot the folks in the front.


----------



## Homeland

Chris0nllyn said:


> We're seeing snipers trained on unarmed AMERICAN civilians. We're seeing police forces more decked out in tacticool gear than guys in Iraq. We're seeing police shoot rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds exercising THEIR RIGHT to assemble (while they announce on loud speakers that "your right to assembly is not being violated"). We're seeing lines of officers pointing their guns at unarmed civilians.



I have seen a lot of things, but other than tear gas guns, I haven't seen any other guns pointed at unarmed citizens.  I'm not doubting you, but could you provide a photo?  I just looked at 65 photo's of the past days events and did not see that.


----------



## Gilligan

The photos of the guy, in black gear with black helmet,  with the tactical-scoped sniper rifle on a tripod sitting on top of an armored vehicle has gotten a lot of play...but there are numerous news articles discussing the issue of Ferguson police pointing rifles at the unarmed protestors. Rifles.  Of course many of them are carrying bean-bag, rubber bullet and tear gas "weapons".


----------



## Hijinx

LibertyBeacon said:


> Yeah, I know. Thinking things through is really hard for your set, innit knee jerk?



Not hard at all for me Jerk-off.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Homeland said:


> I have seen a lot of things, but other than tear gas guns, I haven't seen any other guns pointed at unarmed citizens.  I'm not doubting you, but could you provide a photo?  I just looked at 65 photo's of the past days events and did not see that.



This is probably the most common photo going around right now, but there are others.

View attachment 104204


----------



## Hijinx

Larry Gude said:


> George W. Bush gave us Med D, DHS, TSA, The Patriot Act. the UAW Bailout and TARP. If your point is that those are natural progressions, nothing to see here, all normal, good stuff, then why in the flying hell would you bother objecting to the ACA or anything Obama has done?



Actually this thread is about riots. Did all of those things you hate Bush for cause the riots???
I don't think so.

Many things have changed since 1968, but the attitude of the blacks in the ghetto have not.
They are still ready to riot.
Bush did not cause those attitudes, they are passed on by parents who hate the white man, they are passed on by race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they are passed on by a race of people who blame all of their problems on The Man, and feel the Government should give them money and entitlements because their Great -great Grand mother was a slave. They are passed on by people who get a free education and dropout, and then  do not understand why they cannot be hired at $100,000 a year as a nuclear physicist.

Not because George Bush passed the Patriot act, or TARP, or any of those other things you mentioned..  But you go ahead and blame the racial problems in America on Bush.
Problems that had their start 200 or more years ago.


----------



## Gilligan

This one has gotten a lot of coverage...this is actually a close-up (or crop); there are versions of it around that show the vehicle he's perched on top off too.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Looks like Mr. "teddy bear" was allegedly involved in a robbery prior to his demise.

View attachment 104205


----------



## Hijinx

Chris0nllyn said:


> Looks like Mr. "teddy bear" was allegedly involved in a robbery prior to his demise.
> 
> View attachment 104205



Yeah I think before this is over we will find the officer was justified in the shooting, just as Zimmerman was justified IMO.

It doesn't really change the situation.

I guess it depends on who's story you want to believe.

http://buzzpo.com/breaking-ferguson...shing-new-information-michael-brown-shooting/

This was no small child  this is a big guy, If the cops story is true, I don't blame him for shooting.

The Media keeps calling him a Teenager, but a teenager can kill you just as dead as an adult.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Hijinx said:


> Yeah I think before this is over we will find the officer was justified in the shooting, just as Zimmerman was justified IMO.
> 
> It doesn't really change the situation.



I think that's the most likely outcome. Especially if his friend (the witness) was also with him during the robbery.

Again, this goes back to officers having cameras. This thing could have easily been squashed well before it became a race riot.


----------



## Hijinx

Chris0nllyn said:


> I think that's the most likely outcome. Especially if his friend (the witness) was also with him during the robbery.
> 
> Again, this goes back to officers having cameras. This thing could have easily been squashed well before it became a race riot.



I disagree there. The whole thing could have been on film from ten different angles and they would have still rioted.

The keywords to start this riot were.  Police ----- shooting----- unarmed----- black----- teenager.

Whether or not it was justified did not matter in the least.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Hijinx said:


> I disagree there. The whole thing could have been on film from ten different angles and they would have still rioted.
> 
> The keywords to start this riot were.  Police ----- shooting----- unarmed----- black----- teenager.
> 
> Whether or not it was justified did not matter in the least.



And when the chief says, "look, the guy fought the BLACK officer for his weapon. He's not the teddy bear you all make him out to be".

Did I mention the officer that shot him was also black?


----------



## GURPS

Chris0nllyn said:


> Looks like Mr. "teddy bear" was allegedly involved in a robbery prior to his demise.



well so much fro the nice boy headed off to college;


I was getting ready to post this


*What We Now Know About Officer Who Shot Ferguson Teen – And One HUGE Development Changes Everything*


After a devastating week of rioting and confrontation in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, Police Chief Thomas Jackson has released the name of the officer involved in the fatal shooting of teenager Michael Brown. Darren Wilson.

But that’s not all. In a twist that is sure to ignite further controversy, the Huffington Post reported:

_Jackson also announced the department would be releasing video of a “strong-armed robbery” that took place in the area. He outlined events that took place beginning at 11 a.m. the day of the shooting and offered an account of the incident that implies officers confronted Brown in connection with the robbery.

Although Jackson initially said the name would be released on Tuesday, the police department later announced it would not be releasing the officer’s name out of fear for his safety._​


----------



## kwillia

Chris0nllyn said:


> Looks like Mr. "teddy bear" was allegedly involved in a robbery prior to his demise.
> 
> View attachment 104205


Those are pretty clear pictures so there should be no argument as to whether or not that's him. His outfit is also pretty unique which means the police were looking for someone specifically built like him and dressed like him. This would back the declaration that the policeman who attempted to stop him was not just harrassing a teen boy just for stepping off a curb. Interesting developments indeed.


----------



## Lurk

Hijinx said:


> This was no small child  this is a big guy, ... a teenager can kill you just as dead as an adult.





Thus the legitimate verdict in the Lil' Skittles case.


----------



## Lurk

There will be riots again tonight because "Quickiesmart security videos be rayciss!"


----------



## Gilligan

Lurk said:


> There will be riots again tonight because "Quickiesmart security videos be rayciss!"



Except that his alleged accomplice in the robbery has reportedly confessed to doing it with him....

This a compilation and comments from Ace..but follow the many embedded links. (For those that don't know how good blogs operate)

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/351193.php


----------



## Lurk

> There will be riots again tonight because "Quickiesmart security videos be rayciss!"



and​
Usual suspect confessers be rayciss!


----------



## mamatutu

I am sure Obama, the admin and the Hill are loving this news diversion from issues that are more important in/to America, right now.  I picture Obama and Congress doing the happy dance!  And, they are all on vacation, too.  How fun for them!


----------



## Gilligan

Lurk said:


> and​
> Usual suspect confessers be rayciss!


My gawd...is there anyone on the planet that not be rayciss??


----------



## GW8345

I guess most of you missed the fact that during that press conference, the CoP stated that there was no connection with the shooting of Brown and the robbery, the officer stopped Brown for blocking the road (walking in the middle of the street) and was not aware of the robbery. 

So, even though Brown appears to be a two bit thug, the robbery had nothing to do with the him being stopped and then shot. 

And before you all jump on me because you feel he deserved to be shot, remember we are a country of rights and laws and due process is a right afforded to everyone, even those accused of committing a crime.


----------



## Hank

mamatutu said:


> I am sure Obama, the admin and the Hill are loving this news diversion from issues that are more important in/to America, right now.  I picture Obama and Congress doing the happy dance!  And, they are all on vacation, too.  How fun for them!



Obama owns your tiny mind. I find it hysterical!


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> I guess most of you missed the fact that during that press conference, the CoP stated that there was no connection with the shooting of Brown and the robbery, the officer stopped Brown for blocking the road (walking in the middle of the street) and was not aware of the robbery.
> 
> So, even though Brown appears to be a two bit thug, the robbery had nothing to do with the him being stopped and then shot.
> 
> And before you all jump on me because you feel he deserved to be shot, remember we are a country of rights and laws and due process is a right afforded to everyone, even those accused of committing a crime.



You really do make this too easy!  The cop may not have known Brown was involved in the robbery, but guess who did?  BROWN you idiot, hence the reason he tried to take the cops gun!  Did your mother drop you on your head on purpose or was it an accident.


----------



## Lurk

Gilligan said:


> My gawd...is there anyone on the planet that not be rayciss??



Did I not tell you the video was rayciss?  That one woman accused the cops of PhotoShopping the video to put Michael in that store and that's why the cops didn't release the video right away.   That was immediately after that other woman said the cops released the video too early in order to discredit Michael and harm his fambly.  Of course the other woman said they didn't release the video right away so they could have a riot and shoot the rioters.  It's all so simple.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Hank said:


> Obama owns your tiny mind. I find it hysterical!



That would presume the kook has a mind.


----------



## mamatutu

LibertyBeacon said:


> That would presume the kook has a mind.



No, wonder you are not taken seriously on this forum, and you want to be so badly, it is obvious.  You are 0 for 2 in this thread.  You not only bonded with Hank, but called a member a kook for no reason except your own personal opinion. Am I a kook because I don't agree with you?  Waiting for strike 3.  I wish that would mean you are outta here!  Oh, and thanks for posting some very eloquent contribution to the subject of this thread. You go, LB!


----------



## LibertyBeacon

mamatutu said:


> No, wonder you are not taken seriously on this forum



Hey sweet cheeks. You ever stop to think for a minute not everyone is here to make friends? I know thinking is a stretch for you, but go ahead and give it the old middle school try!


----------



## mamatutu

LibertyBeacon said:


> Hey sweet cheeks. You ever stop to think for a minute not everyone is here to make friends?



I said nothing about making friends.  I said you want people to take you seriously, or are you just here to throw out crap you don't really believe.  Again, thanks for the disparaging remark used in your response to me.  One thing I do know for sure is that you are no gentleman.  Happy foruming!


----------



## GW8345

LibertyBeacon said:


> _Hey sweet cheeks. You ever stop to think for a minute not everyone is here to make friends? _I know thinking is a stretch for you, but go ahead and give it the old middle school try!


Well, you sure came to the right place then.


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> You really do make this too easy!  The cop may not have known Brown was involved in the robbery, but guess who did?  BROWN you idiot, hence the reason he tried to take the cops gun!  Did your mother drop you on your head on purpose or was it an accident.



And can you prove Brown tried for the officers gun?

I would love to see the video, or maybe even a picture, how about a witness other than the officer, or any DNA evidence, anything beside the officer's word, what proof do you have that he indeed tried for the officer's gun?


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> And can you prove Brown tried for the officers gun?
> 
> I would love to see the video, or maybe even a picture, how about a witness other than the officer, or any DNA evidence, anything beside the officer's word, what proof do you have that he indeed tried for the officer's gun?



Yea, that's exactly what you need.  You're too stupid to think.  You need to have absolute proof.  It would never occur to you that a police officer with a spotless record might be doing that for the exact reason the police officer said he shot the person.  Because the thug tried to take his gun away.

Forget common sense.  You stick with having to have absolute proof and to take the word over the other thug with Brown as well as the "witness" from that neighborhood.  We have seen how the people in that neighborhood are all such stand up citizens.


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> Yea, that's exactly what you need.  You're too stupid to think.  You need to have absolute proof.  It would never occur to you that a police officer with a spotless record might be doing that for the exact reason the police officer said he shot the person.  Because the thug tried to take his gun away.
> 
> Forget common sense.  You stick with having to have absolute proof and to take the word over the other thug with Brown as well as the "witness" from that neighborhood.  We have seen how the people in that neighborhood are all such stand up citizens.



Funny, I always thought cops were only concerned with facts, not theories.

Also, can you prove that it was those people from that neighborhood that were actually involved with the riots and that the other person with Brown was involve with the incident in the store?

Yes, I deal with facts because facts aren't blinded by emotions, they provide a clear picture of what actually happened and not what someone imagined what happened, obviously you can't seem to grasp the importance of facts.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> Funny, I always thought cops were only concerned with facts, not theories.
> 
> This is how stupid you really are!  There are times, where theories are all you have dumb a$$!  This case, however is not that.  In this case, you have a credible witness.  The cop!  This is why you could never be a cop because you have to use common sense.  Everything isn't handed to you in a video!
> 
> Also, can you prove that it was those people from that neighborhood that were actually involved with the riots and that the other person with Brown was involve with the incident in the store?
> 
> Yes, I deal with facts because facts aren't blinded by emotions, they provide a clear picture of what actually happened and not what someone imagined what happened, obviously you can't seem to grasp the importance of facts.



How do you come to facts?  The cop said he tried to take his gun.  The cop said he tried to take his gun.   Do you have any proof he didn't?


----------



## Hijinx

The kid was a Gorilla, From his picture he weighed about 210 and was 6 foot tall, If someone this size came at me in a car and tried to take my gun , I would have shot the fool.

The kid was just coming from a strong arm robbery and it can assumed that he thought that was why he was being stopped.
And why the fool was walking away from a robbery in the middle of the street can only be guessed at.

The media in their effort to keep the story going keep harping on the kid was a teenager unarmed, and he was shot.
Well: A teenager can kill you just as dead as an adult especially if he can get your own gun away from you.

Then we have his pal saying he was standing at the Police car with his hands up. Do we believe any officer would deliberately shoot a kid standing , not bothering anyone?

I don't believe that. Maybe some here do, but I don't. I believe it was a good shooting as they say in the cop shows.

And then of course there is the Obligatory "he was a good kid"  Just getting ready to go to College, Loved his Grandmother.


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> How do you come to facts?  The cop said he tried to take his gun.  The cop said he tried to take his gun.   Do you have any proof he didn't?



I have about as much proof as you. Also, never heard of anyone being convicted of a crime without any proof, I guess innocent until proven guilty means nothing to you, you've already found Brown guilty and the only "facts" you have used is what you have gathered from the media. 

And you are correct, not everything is handed to police on video, that's why they have crime labs, DNA analysis, finger print identification, ballistics, and trained detectives but since you are an IKE I guess you don't need any of those, you know exactly what happen even though you haven't visited the crime scene, seen all the evidence or even interview one witness, all you need to prove someone is guilty is what is being reported in the media.

Only a stupid person would take the word of one witness, no matter who he is, without question and not bother to review evidence or facts.


----------



## Tito

GW8345 said:


> I have about as much proof as you. Also, never heard of anyone being convicted of a crime without any proof, I guess innocent until proven guilty means nothing to you, you've already found Brown guilty and the only "facts" you have used is what you have gathered from the media.
> 
> And you are correct, not everything is handed to police on video, that's why they have crime labs, DNA analysis, finger print identification, ballistics, and trained detectives but since you are an IKE I guess you don't need any of those, you know exactly what happen even though you haven't visited the crime scene, seen all the evidence or even interview one witness, all you need to prove someone is guilty is what is being reported in the media.
> 
> Only a stupid person would take the word of one witness, no matter who he is, without question and not bother to review evidence or facts.



Lady you are on fire blowing all kinda hot air tonight.


----------



## GW8345

Hijinx said:


> The kid was a Gorilla, From his picture he weighed about 210 and was 6 foot tall, If someone this size came at me in a car and tried to take my gun , I would have shot the fool.
> 
> The kid was just coming from a strong arm robbery and it can assumed that he thought that was why he was being stopped.
> And why the fool was walking away from a robbery in the middle of the street can only be guessed at.
> 
> The media in their effort to keep the story going keep harping on the kid was a teenager unarmed, and he was shot.
> Well: A teenager can kill you just as dead as an adult especially if he can get your own gun away from you.
> 
> Then we have his pal saying he was standing at the Police car with his hands up. Do we believe any officer would deliberately shoot a kid standing , not bothering anyone?
> 
> I don't believe that. Maybe some here do, but I don't. I believe it was a good shooting as they say in the cop shows.
> 
> And then of course there is the Obligatory "he was a good kid"  Just getting ready to go to College, Loved his Grandmother.


How far was was Officer Wilson from Brown when he shot Brown? Brown was not shot when he went for the officers gun, he was shot outside the car and from what I've heard, it was not a close range shooting.

Do I think Brown was an innocent kid, no, he was a thug but again, this is a country of laws and rights and if Brown was not posing a threat at the time of the shooting the officer did not have the right to shoot him, even though Brown did try for the officers guns moments before (according to what we have learned so far) Brown was not a threat when he was shot. Now, if the officer had shot Brown while he was still seated in the car that would be a different matter but the officer had time to get out of his car and pursue Brown who was a short distance from him when the officer fired, thus Brown was no longer an immediate threat. 

Again, people are throwing due process out the window since brown committed on crime just prior to being shot, so much for innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> How far was was Officer Wilson from Brown when he shot Brown? Brown was not shot when he went for the officers gun, he was shot outside the car and from what I've heard, it was not a close range shooting.
> 
> 
> Again, people are throwing due process out the window since brown committed on crime just prior to being shot, so much for innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law.



You mean like you are doing with the cop?  Do you have any proof Brown was no longer a threat?


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> You mean like you are doing with the cop?  Do you have any proof Brown was no longer a threat?



No I don't, but like our criminal system, I will assume he is innocent until proven guilty, guess they didn't teach you that in the academy.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> No I don't, but like our criminal system, I will assume he is innocent until proven guilty, guess they didn't teach you that in the academy.



Yea, it really sounds like you are assuming the cop is innocent.


----------



## Lurk

Here's hoping the emergency room was alert enough to take photographs of the damage done to the officer's face by the "kid" standing outside the cruiser with his hands in the air.


----------



## GW8345

Lurk said:


> Here's hoping the emergency room was alert enough to take photographs of the damage done to the officer's face by the "kid" standing outside the cruiser with his hands in the air.


So the officer is justified for shooting Brown after he got out of his car and Brown was slight distance away all because Brown struck him. Now, I did read yesterday that the officer is stating that Brown did charge the officer after the officer had gotten out of his vehicle, if this is true, and with all the other facts, then I would say the officer was justified in shooting Brown. The point I was trying to make is that until all the facts are known, no one should say that Brown deserved to be shot and the officer was justified until all the facts are known, it's not like officers have never lied before in order to protect themselves.


----------



## tom88

> Originally Posted by GW8345
> 
> How far was was Officer Wilson from Brown when he shot Brown? Brown was not shot when he went for the officers gun, he was shot outside the car and from what I've heard, it was not a close range shooting.
> 
> 
> Again, people are throwing due process out the window since brown committed on crime just prior to being shot, so much for innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law.



You give a lot of people grief about not having proof of things, but you make assumptions such as "Brown was not shot when he went for the officers gun".

Aren't you throwing the officers due process out the window and making determinations about things he may or may not have done without giving him due process?  Why is it fair to give it to Brown, where there is video of him potentially committing a crime, the benefit of doubt, but not a police officer who has no history of violence?


----------



## Lurk

GW8345 said:


> So the officer is justified for shooting Brown after he got out of his car and Brown was slight distance away all because Brown struck him. Now, I did read yesterday that the officer is stating that Brown did charge the officer after the officer had gotten out of his vehicle, if this is true, and with all the other facts, then I would say the officer was justified in shooting Brown. The point I was trying to make is that until all the facts are known, no one should say that Brown deserved to be shot and the officer was justified until all the facts are known, it's not like officers have never lied before in order to protect themselves.



No, the officer was justified shooting Brown as he grappled for the gun inside the cruiser.  This is another Trayvon case.


----------



## Hijinx

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...utstanding-arrest-warrant-for-previous-theft/

So: who are you going to believe?


----------



## GW8345

tom88 said:


> You give a lot of people grief about not having proof of things, but you make assumptions such as "Brown was not shot when he went for the officers gun".
> 
> Aren't you throwing the officers due process out the window and making determinations about things he may or may not have done without giving him due process?  Why is it fair to give it to Brown, where there is video of him potentially committing a crime, the benefit of doubt, but not a police officer who has no history of violence?


Because Brown was unarmed and was shot after the struggle for the officers weapon was over. 



Lurk said:


> No, the officer was justified shooting Brown as he grappled for the gun inside the cruiser.  This is another Trayvon case.



Again, Brown was shot after the struggle for the officer's weapon was over and the officer had time to get out of his car and pursue Brown.


----------



## Hijinx

GW8345 said:


> Because Brown was unarmed and was shot after the struggle for the officers weapon was over.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Brown was shot after the struggle for the officer's weapon was over and the officer had time to get out of his car and pursue Brown.



You seem awful sure of that, were you there?


----------



## Lurk

Hijinx said:


> You seem awful sure of that, were you there?



The preponderance of coverage by the media on the ground in Ferguson has been from the perspective of the protesters and the victim.  Since few remember that the officer involved was taken to the hospital for care of the confrontation, few will even acknowledge that the 300 pound man who had very recently gotten away with physical confrontation might still be on an adrenaline rush.


----------



## Gilligan

ha ha ha haa!..  Jesse gets a "cool" reception...

http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/in-ferguson-jesse-jackson-reportedly-booed-after-asking-crowd-for-donations/


----------



## Hijinx

Lurk said:


> The preponderance of coverage by the media on the ground in Ferguson has been from the perspective of the protesters and the victim.  Since few remember that the officer involved was taken to the hospital for care of the confrontation, few will even acknowledge that the 300 pound man who had very recently gotten away with physical confrontation might still be on an adrenaline rush.



The Preponderance  of Coverage by the Media is to keep these people stirred up.

Riots sell Newspapers and makes people turn on their TV to hear the News.

The Media has no interest in Peaceful Protest.


----------



## Hijinx

Gilligan said:


> ha ha ha haa!..  Jesse gets a "cool" reception...
> 
> http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/in-ferguson-jesse-jackson-reportedly-booed-after-asking-crowd-for-donations/



Jesse must be broke, his message used to be more subtle.


----------



## Gilligan

Hijinx said:


> Jesse must be broke, his message used to be more subtle.




He barely had enough to cover air fare to get down there. That's why Al got there first and got the best seats.


----------



## GW8345

Hijinx said:


> You seem awful sure of that, were you there?


No, were you? I'm doing what everyone else is doing, using what the media report to form an opinion, I'm just not jumping to the conclusion that since an officer was involved that it was a justify shooting right off the bat.



Lurk said:


> The preponderance of coverage by the media on the ground in Ferguson has been from the perspective of the protesters and the victim.  Since few remember that the officer involved was taken to the hospital for care of the confrontation, few will even acknowledge that the 300 pound man who had very recently gotten away with physical confrontation might still be on an adrenaline rush.


And how do we know that the officer didn't shoot himself in the leg during the struggle for the weapon, that he didn't have to go get a knuckle stitched up after hitting Brown during the struggle. We don't know the extent of the officer's injuries, only that he had to seek medical attention after the incident and instantly, people are jumping to the conclusion that Brown was the source of his injuries.

Again, details are very sketchy and not all are being released, hell, even the official police releases contradict themselves. 

How about we treat all shootings like most of you are treating this one, that the shooter is instantly justified in shooting the shootee and not worry about any of the evidence. 

All I'm doing is giving Brown the benefit of the doubt and he is innocent until proven guilty, after all, he was the one that was unarmed and was shot. If this incident involved an average citizen, would you all think the same way?


----------



## mamatutu

Why is Holder calling for a Federal autopsy?  In that case, he should call for a Federal autopsy for every /killing/black/white/Hispanic/Asian/young/old, etc. incident throughout the US every day.  How blatantly political can a situation get?  Hello Trayvon.  Just another example of purposeful racial divide by our illustrious administration.
-----------------------------------------------
"NBC News is reporting that Barack Obama’s Justice Department will perform its own autopsy on Michael Brown:

“Due to the extraordinary circumstances involved in this case and at the request of the Brown family, Attorney General Holder has instructed Justice Department officials to arrange for an additional autopsy to be performed by a federal medical examiner,” Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said in statement.

“This independent examination will take place as soon as possible. Even after it is complete, Justice Department officials still plan to take the state-performed autopsy into account in the course of their investigation.”

Additionally, Holder’s DOJ has opened a civil-rights investigation into the case. Saturday night, prior to a governor-imposed curfew, New Black Panthers leader Malik Zulus Shabazz led a chant calling for the death of Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Brown.

Are the feds just being thorough, here, or are they suggesting that authorities in Missouri are not to be trusted to report their true findings in the death of Michael Brown?"

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168742-fanning-flames-hold-orders-federal-autopsy-michael-brown/


----------



## Hijinx

GW8345 said:


> No, were you? I'm doing what everyone else is doing, using what the media report to form an opinion, I'm just not jumping to the conclusion that since an officer was involved that it was a justify shooting right off the bat.
> 
> 
> And how do we know that the officer didn't shoot himself in the leg during the struggle for the weapon, that he didn't have to go get a knuckle stitched up after hitting Brown during the struggle. We don't know the extent of the officer's injuries, only that he had to seek medical attention after the incident and instantly, people are jumping to the conclusion that Brown was the source of his injuries.
> 
> Again, details are very sketchy and not all are being released, hell, even the official police releases contradict themselves.
> 
> How about we treat all shootings like most of you are treating this one, that the shooter is instantly justified in shooting the shootee and not worry about any of the evidence.
> 
> All I'm doing is giving Brown the benefit of the doubt and he is innocent until proven guilty, after all, he was the one that was unarmed and was shot. If this incident involved an average citizen, would you all think the same way?



Your position is a great stretch. But while we are stretching let me tell you of a report I read today in Facebook.  I know that is a lousy source but just for the hell of it , I will use it. It is said that after the struggle the Officer got out of his car and was chasing the suspect in order to arrest him. Now this poor unarmed teen was evidently not very fast and the Officer was catching up, so the kid turned on him and rushed at him, the Officer seeing this 250 lb. behemoth who he had already struggled with in the car, coming full bore at him blew the kid away.

Now the story presents a reason for the kid being away from the car when he was shot, and I make no Judgement as to it's truthfullness, in other words I won't riot no matter how it goes down. Even if they convict the Police Officer I will not riot. It is not my nature to riot.

Now your last sentence :If this incident involved an average citizen, would you all think the same way?

Was this kid not an average citizen? What makes him un-average?


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> Because Brown was unarmed and was shot after the struggle for the officers weapon was over.
> 
> Again, Brown was shot after the struggle for the officer's weapon was over and the officer had time to get out of his car and pursue Brown.



You really are stupid!  You talk about due process for Brown when you have video evidence, but then you make a statement of fact which is in dispute when you have no evidence.  YOU stupid, said you heard Brown was charging the officer when he was shot, but in this statement (after you said that) you are saying he pursued Brown.  So, in your words, do you have proof that he pursued Brown or is this just your stupid a$$ assumption?


----------



## Hijinx

I just watched Al Sharptongue on MSNBC stirring the pot  Al dropped all pretext of education and spoke ebonics fluently.

Wid, Dat, We Gone do dis and dat. Al was great at it.  He is in his glory. He was smarter than Jesse who asked for Donations, he is going to the Government for the money.

Then he brought on MKL the third. A man who has missed no meals and will certainly be in on the take.Guy weighs 350 if he weighs a lb.


----------



## Hijinx

itsrequired said:


> You really are stupid!  You talk about due process for Brown when you have video evidence, but then you make a statement of fact which is in dispute when you have no evidence.  YOU stupid, said you heard Brown was charging the officer when he was shot, but in this statement (after you said that) you are saying he pursued Brown.  So, in your words, do you have proof that he pursued Brown or is this just your stupid a$$ assumption?



Huh?????


----------



## mamatutu

Hijinx said:


> I just watched Al Sharptongue on MSNBC stirring the pot  Al dropped all pretext of education and spoke ebonics fluently.
> 
> Wid, Dat, We Gone do dis and dat. Al was great at it.  He is in his glory. He was smarter than Jesse who asked for Donations, he is going to the Government for the money.
> 
> Then he brought on MKL the third. A man who has missed no meals and will certainly be in on the take.Guy weighs 350 if he weighs a lb.



Are you going to be able to eat dinner tonight after watching/listening to that?  I feel nauseated after reading your post, and I didn't even watch/listen to it.  Ugh.


----------



## Hijinx

mamatutu said:


> Are you going to be able to eat dinner tonight after watching/listening to that?  I feel nauseated after reading your post, and I didn't even watch/listen to it.  Ugh.



I was amused. I knew I shouldn't be because watching a real professional work a crowd of idiots is not funny, but Al had them in the palm of his hand. Just like he will have their money one way or the other. Al doesn't go there for nothing. This IS his living.

Listening to him slaughter the English language  while in character for his performance was amusing. Not that he doesn't slaughter the language anyway.


----------



## Gilligan

Hijinx said:


> , in other words I won't riot no matter how it goes down. Even if they convict the Police Officer I will not riot. It is not my nature to riot.



You miss out on a lot of free stuff with that kind of attitude. mister.

The evidence that Brown turned on the pursuing officer is background chatter on a cell phone recording..witnesses to the incident talking about it as it went down. I saw the transcript earlier today.  Interesting development but we're still a long way from having a complete picture, it seems.


----------



## itsrequired

Hijinx said:


> Huh?????



I'll be happy to explain.  GW8 is crying about people not giving Brown his due process in that he is only accused of robbing the store owner, and hasn't been convicted.  (Despite having video evidence and the store owners statement which supports that video evidence).  In almost the same breath, GW8 accusses this police officer of chasing Brown down and shooting the unarmed subject for no apparent reason.  (Even though he has "heard" that Brown was charging the officer).  So, my point to GW8 is that he contradicts himself when it comes to demanding due process.  He is more than willing to give it to Brown, and make assumptions which benefit Brown, but not so much when it comes to the cop!


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> I'll be happy to explain.  GW8 is crying about people not giving Brown his due process in that he is only accused of robbing the store owner, and hasn't been convicted.  (Despite having video evidence and the store owners statement which supports that video evidence).  In almost the same breath, GW8 accusses this police officer of chasing Brown down and shooting the unarmed subject for no apparent reason.  (Even though he has "heard" that Brown was charging the officer).  So, my point to GW8 is that he contradicts himself when it comes to demanding due process.  He is more than willing to give it to Brown, and make assumptions which benefit Brown, but not so much when it comes to the cop!


Aren't you making assumptions also?

And hindsight is always 20/20, there was only 12 minutes between the call for the store robbery and the cop stopping Brown, funny how in that time the police were able to complete an investigation and come to the conclusion that Brown was guilty for that is exactly what you are doing here.

So you are saying that every police shooting doesn't need to be investigated, after all, it involves an officer so it must be justified. 

And the reason why I'm giving Brown the benefit of the doubt is because he was unarmed, as more details come out it appears that the officer had reason to shoot Brown but three days ago those details weren't release and yet you assumed the officer was justified, guess you are psychic.


----------



## glhs837

GW8345 said:


> Aren't you making assumptions also?
> 
> And hindsight is always 20/20, there was only 12 minutes between the call for the store robbery and the cop stopping Brown, funny how in that time the police were able to complete an investigation and come to the conclusion that Brown was guilty for that is exactly what you are doing here.
> 
> So you are saying that every police shooting doesn't need to be investigated, after all, it involves an officer so it must be justified.
> 
> And the reason why I'm giving Brown the benefit of the doubt is because he was unarmed, as more details come out it appears that the officer had reason to shoot Brown but three days ago those details weren't release and yet *you assumed the officer was justified, guess you are psychic.*




Nope, just using that thing called judgement. Playing the probabilities, not just equally entertaining all possibilities. While is was equally _possible_ this officer just gunned down, at random, a guy whose only apparent crime was strolling down the street, its much more _probable_ that he was shooting the young man with a good reason.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> Aren't you making assumptions also?
> 
> And hindsight is always 20/20, there was only 12 minutes between the call for the store robbery and the cop stopping Brown, funny how in that time the police were able to complete an investigation and come to the conclusion that Brown was guilty for that is exactly what you are doing here.
> 
> So you are saying that every police shooting doesn't need to be investigated, after all, it involves an officer so it must be justified.
> 
> And the reason why I'm giving Brown the benefit of the doubt is because he was unarmed, as more details come out it appears that the officer had reason to shoot Brown but three days ago those details weren't release and yet you assumed the officer was justified, guess you are psychic.



Please explain to me what assumptions without evidence I am making?

When did I say the police shooting shouldn't be investigated?

Psychic?  No.  Willing to use common sense and look at the entirety of a situation and postpone judgment until sufficient evidence is available?  Yes.  Willing to be able to discern video evidence and make a reasonable conclusion of that?  Yes.  Not willing to jump to conclusions or be led by a biased media?  Yes.


----------



## MarieB

I haven't read the thread but have been trying to follow the case

I find it interesting that at least one shot was fired in the patrol car itself

I also note from a discussion that I had with someone else - she brought up that since the robbery had happened so soon, that its likely that the Brown was still pumping adrenaline and may have thought that is why the officer was stopping him.  Just some things to think about. 

Sharpton and Crump are causing a lot of problems there as usual


----------



## tom88

GW8345 said:


> Because Brown was unarmed and was shot *after *the struggle for the officers weapon was over.
> 
> Again, Brown was shot after the struggle for the officer's weapon was over and the officer had time to get out of his car and pursue Brown.



How is it you know this?  This is something you state as a fact which I believe is still in dispute.  I find it somewhat incredulous that you chastise others for making assumptions while at the same time you are doing just that!  Isn't it possible that Brown was shot when the struggle was ongoing?


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> You really do make this too easy!  The cop may not have known Brown was involved in the robbery, but guess who did?  BROWN you idiot, *hence the reason he tried to take the cops gun*!  Did your mother drop you on your head on purpose or was it an accident.


Are you not assuming the reason for why Brown tried to take the officer's weapon?



itsrequired said:


> Yea, that's exactly what you need.  You're too stupid to think.  You need to have absolute proof.  It would never occur to you that a police officer with a spotless record might be doing that for the exact reason the police officer said he shot the person.  Because the thug tried to take his gun away.
> 
> Forget common sense.  You stick with having to have absolute proof and to take the word over the other thug with Brown a*s well as the "witness" from that neighborhood.  We have seen how the people in that neighborhood are all such stand up citizens*.



Aren't you assuming all witnesses are not creditable with the exception of the officer, you are also assuming all those who are rioting are residents of the neighborhood, contrary to reports that a lot of the rioters are from out of town. Also, are you not assuming the incident took place exactly like the officer stated.



itsrequired said:


> How do you come to facts?  The cop said he tried to take his gun.  The cop said he tried to take his gun.   Do you have any proof he didn't?



Again, you are assuming what the officer's stated is factual and that the incident happened the way the officer stated.



itsrequired said:


> You mean like you are doing with the cop?  Do you have any proof Brown was no longer a threat?



And you are assuming that Brown was a threat. And, let me point out the date of this post, the video stating that Brown charged the officer hadn't been released yet.



itsrequired said:


> Please explain to me what assumptions without evidence I am making?
> 
> When did I say the police shooting shouldn't be investigated?
> 
> Psychic?  No.  Willing to use common sense and look at the entirety of a situation and postpone judgment until sufficient evidence is available?  Yes.  Willing to be able to discern video evidence and make a reasonable conclusion of that?  Yes.  Not willing to jump to conclusions or be led by a biased media?  Yes.



And what evidence have you seen/reviewed? What video evidence have you reviewed, is there video of the shooting, of the crime scene, of Brown's body? 

Funny, you say you look at the "entirety of a situation and postpone judgment until sufficient evidence is available" and are not bias but no autopsy report has been released, you've discounted all witness statements except the officer's, no ballistics report has been released, no DNA analysis of the officers weapon has been released, the toxicology report on Brown has not been completed, and there has been conflicting police statements at to what happened. 

Yep, you're not assuming anything and you're not biased at all.


----------



## GW8345

tom88 said:


> How is it you know this?  This is something you state as a fact which I believe is still in dispute.  I find it somewhat incredulous that you chastise others for making assumptions while at the same time you are doing just that!  Isn't it possible that Brown was shot when the struggle was ongoing?



It is possible that Brown may have been shot during the struggle for the officer's weapon, but no witnesses have stated that, there is not report of a blood trail, Brown was able to run away and then double back towards the officer. If Brown was shot during the struggle it would most likely be an upper body wound and at close range, I doubt Brown would have been able to run away like he did and then double back towards the officer.

And you are right, I am assuming just like everyone else, it's just that most are assuming Brown is guilty and I am following what our justice system would do, assume innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> Are you not assuming the reason for why Brown tried to take the officer's weapon?
> 
> Aren't you assuming all witnesses are not creditable with the exception of the officer, you are also assuming all those who are rioting are residents of the neighborhood, contrary to reports that a lot of the rioters are from out of town. Also, are you not assuming the incident took place exactly like the officer stated.
> 
> Again, you are assuming what the officer's stated is factual and that the incident happened the way the officer stated.
> 
> And you are assuming that Brown was a threat. And, let me point out the date of this post, the video stating that Brown charged the officer hadn't been released yet.
> 
> And what evidence have you seen/reviewed? What video evidence have you reviewed, is there video of the shooting, of the crime scene, of Brown's body?
> 
> Funny, you say you look at the "entirety of a situation and postpone judgment until sufficient evidence is available" and are not bias but no autopsy report has been released, you've discounted all witness statements except the officer's, no ballistics report has been released, no DNA analysis of the officers weapon has been released, the toxicology report on Brown has not been completed, and there has been conflicting police statements at to what happened.
> 
> Yep, you're not assuming anything and you're not biased at all.


Nice straw man argument.  I asked what assumptions I am making without evidence.  You have given me none!  Soon you will be back tracking because you are wrong.  Here's an assumption I'll make!  Michael Brown was a thug.  Here is a fact I will state.  YOU ARE STUPID!


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> Nice straw man argument.  I asked what assumptions I am making without evidence.  You have given me none!  Soon you will be back tracking because you are wrong.  Here's an assumption I'll make!  Michael Brown was a thug.  Here is a fact I will state.  YOU ARE STUPID!



So you don't need an autopsy report, ballistics report, DNA analysis, toxicology report, photos of the crime scene, to determine that the officer acted in self defense, after all, aren't those also evidence?

I may be back tracking once all the evidence has been release, but at least I didn't automatically assume the officer was in the right like you have after shooting an unarmed citizen.


----------



## tom88

GW8345 said:


> It is possible that Brown may have been shot during the struggle for the officer's weapon, but no witnesses have stated that, there is not report of a blood trail, Brown was able to run away and then double back towards the officer. If Brown was shot during the struggle it would most likely be an upper body wound and at close range, I doubt Brown would have been able to run away like he did and then double back towards the officer.
> 
> And you are right, I am assuming just like everyone else, it's just that most are assuming Brown is guilty and I am following what our justice system would do, assume innocent until proven guilty.



I understand your belief that Brown is innocent until proven guilty, but I think where most, such as myself take exception is that you are not giving the officer equal benefit of doubt when the evidence is clearly starting to point in that direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL9dqkyjhM

I would invite you to listen to this video begining at about 7 minutes.  A witness to the crime talks about he police officer chasing Brown and Brown doubling back on the cop.  Based on that witness, I would say that it is more likely that the story of the officer fighting this guy and shooting in self defense is a much more credible story than what you are seemingly going to believe.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> So you don't need an autopsy report, ballistics report, DNA analysis, toxicology report, photos of the crime scene, to determine that the officer acted in self defense, after all, aren't those also evidence?
> 
> I may be back tracking once all the evidence has been release, but at least I didn't automatically assume the officer was in the right like you have after shooting an unarmed citizen.



No stupid, you don't need all of those things to develop probable cause.  You are to stupid to understand what probable cause is, so I will wait for you to back track a little more!

Show me where I assumed the officer was in the right for shooting an unarmed citizen until further facts were presented to make a reasonable person believe Brown had a reason to fight the officer.  I'll save you time.  You can't!  I reserved my judgment until such time as I saw a video of Brown pushing a man who reported he had robbed him, and heard a video of a witness who stated Brown doubled back on the officer.  

But again, I am not telling people they shouldn't be making assumptions while doing the same.  You have made assumptions all along and started to criticize peopel for doing exactly what you are doing.  I know you won't admit your wrong, that's your manner.  Your'e and azzhole and can't ever admit you're wrong.  You are stupid!


----------



## GW8345

tom88 said:


> I understand your belief that Brown is innocent until proven guilty, but I think where most, such as myself take exception is that you are not giving the officer equal benefit of doubt when the evidence is clearly starting to point in that direction.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL9dqkyjhM
> 
> I would invite you to listen to this video begining at about 7 minutes.  A witness to the crime talks about he police officer chasing Brown and Brown doubling back on the cop.  Based on that witness, I would say that it is more likely that the story of the officer fighting this guy and shooting in self defense is a much more credible story than what you are seemingly going to believe.



That video was just release late yesterday, people have been assuming the officer was justified since day one.

So you are saying for every officer involved shooting you don't need to see any evidence before you form an opinion?


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> No stupid, you don't need all of those things to develop probable cause.  You are to stupid to understand what probable cause is, so I will wait for you to back track a little more!
> 
> Show me where I assumed the officer was in the right for shooting an unarmed citizen until further facts were presented to make a reasonable person believe Brown had a reason to fight the officer.  I'll save you time.  You can't!  I reserved my judgment until such time as I saw a video of Brown pushing a man who reported he had robbed him, and heard a video of a witness who stated Brown doubled back on the officer.
> 
> But again, I am not telling people they shouldn't be making assumptions while doing the same.  You have made assumptions all along and started to criticize peopel for doing exactly what you are doing.  I know you won't admit your wrong, that's your manner.  Your'e and azzhole and can't ever admit you're wrong.  You are stupid!


You know, when the person you are having a debate with starts calling you names and insulting you, you know they are grasping at straws and is losing the debate. 

So know you are jumping to probable cause and know you are willing to take a witnesses word as factual, guess it fitted your biased opinion.


----------



## tom88

GW8345 said:


> So you are saying for every officer involved shooting you don't need to see any evidence before you form an opinion?



No, why would you make such a statement?  I haven't said any think which would point to that statement.  You still haven't answer the question.  You seem to be willing to give Brown the benefit of doubt, why is it you are so reluctant to give the officer the same benefit?  

Do you agree that it appears that Brown committed a robbery?  If so, what is it about this officer that makes you think he would shoot an unarmed person without justification.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> You know, when the person you are having a debate with starts calling you names and insulting you, you know they are grasping at straws and is losing the debate.
> 
> So know you are jumping to probable cause and know you are willing to take a witnesses word as factual, guess it fitted your biased opinion.



I called you stupid long before the debate because you are stupid.  That's my name for you.  YOU know you are losing the debate when you begin to pose these straw man arguments.


----------



## itsrequired

tom88 said:


> No, why would you make such a statement?  I haven't said any think which would point to that statement.  You still haven't answer the question.  You seem to be willing to give Brown the benefit of doubt, why is it you are so reluctant to give the officer the same benefit?
> 
> Do you agree that it appears that Brown committed a robbery?  If so, what is it about this officer that makes you think he would shoot an unarmed person without justification.



Because that's what he does.  He says the stupidest things and then trys to attribute some idiotic thought to the person he is arguing with in order to change the dialogue.


----------



## mamatutu

Ummm...It is called a difference of opinion.  It is that simple.


----------



## GW8345

tom88 said:


> No, why would you make such a statement?  I haven't said any think which would point to that statement.  You still haven't answer the question.  You seem to be willing to give Brown the benefit of doubt, why is it you are so reluctant to give the officer the same benefit?
> 
> Do you agree that it appears that Brown committed a robbery?  If so, what is it about this officer that makes you think he would shoot an unarmed person without justification.


Yes, it appears that Brown did commit a robbery but that information was not available when I started posting in this thread. 

I give Brown the benefit of the doubt because a lot of people who responded to this thread think he was guilty of something that caused the officer to fire his weapon. I am skeptical of all people with authority, I've seen how power has corrupted people, LEO aren't any different.


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> I called you stupid long before the debate because you are stupid.  That's my name for you.  YOU know you are losing the debate when you begin to pose these straw man arguments.



Only you think it's a straw man's argument. 

And again, when you have to insult someone you are debating, it means you are grasping and losing.


----------



## Amused_despair

itsrequired said:


> I called you stupid long before the debate because you are stupid.  That's my name for you.  YOU know you are losing the debate when you begin to pose these straw man arguments.



would it be a straw man arguement to bring up how many times he uses the phrase "straw man arguement" ?


----------



## tom88

GW8345 said:


> Yes, it appears that Brown did commit a robbery but that information was not available when I started posting in this thread.
> 
> I give Brown the benefit of the doubt because a lot of people who responded to this thread think he was guilty of something that caused the officer to fire his weapon. I am skeptical of all people with authority, I've seen how power has corrupted people, LEO aren't any different.



You, however continued to give Brown the benefit of doubt after you saw the video.  You argue that he isn't guilty until proven in a court of law, but then still don't give that officer the same benefit.  I can understand your skepticism of authority.  If I am to believe your posts, you were once one in authority.  If that is the case, am I to suspect you as well?  Your argument is lopsided.  I am now tending to agree with its required that you are a person who has difficulty admitting he's wrong.  I don't tend to get into these prolonged arguments on here so this is my last on the subject.  You are accusing people of being biased while you admit you have a bias.  You're reluctant to be skeptical of a person you see committing a crime, but are willing to accuse an officer of wrongdoing even though the evidence would suggest otherwise.  Before you answer this, (which is a mute point because I won't be responding back) I would suggest you speak to someone who is associated with the rules of evidence and see exactly what that entails.


----------



## GW8345

tom88 said:


> You, however continued to give Brown the benefit of doubt after you saw the video.  You argue that he isn't guilty until proven in a court of law, but then still don't give that officer the same benefit.  I can understand your skepticism of authority.  If I am to believe your posts, you were once one in authority.  If that is the case, am I to suspect you as well?  Your argument is lopsided.  I am now tending to agree with its required that you are a person who has difficulty admitting he's wrong.  I don't tend to get into these prolonged arguments on here so this is my last on the subject.  You are accusing people of being biased while you admit you have a bias.  You're reluctant to be skeptical of a person you see committing a crime, but are willing to accuse an officer of wrongdoing even though the evidence would suggest otherwise.  Before you answer this, (which is a mute point because I won't be responding back) I would suggest you speak to someone who is associated with the rules of evidence and see exactly what that entails.



The officer was the one who shot Brown, after the struggle for the officer’s weapon had ended and Brown was a distance away from the officer. As more details emerge it appears to me that the officerwas justified but other’s here jumped to that conclusion immediately. 

I heard on the news this morning that Brown was shot 6 times, twice in the head, all frontal body wounds so it appears to me that Brown was facing the officer when he was shot. Now, was he charging the officer like the witness stated, don’t know, other witnesses stated he was surrendering, who do you believe? 

As more details emerge things become clearer but at the beginning of this conversation, I wasn’t willing to blindly side with the officer like others; guess a person’s opinion can’t change after they get all the facts.

And to answer your question, I was in a position of authority when I was in the military and I saw how others with authority allowed it to go to their head, hence the reason why I’m skeptical of anyone in a position of authority, esp. police, and prime example is our own IR.

I don’t view my opinion as being wrong given the information that was available at the time, I view it as giving a shooting victim the benefit of the doubt until more information was made available. I just didn’t jump to the conclusion that the officer was justified and Brown deserved to be shot like others thought. Does that make my opinion wrong, it’s how you look at it, with the information available at the time, no, with the information we now have, yes. 

Also, if the officer was in the right, why is the department doing an investigation in order to determine if the shooting was justified, like they do for all officer involved shootings? Why is the officer on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation? Guess the department can be skeptical but an average citizen can’t.


----------



## Homeland

GW8345 said:


> The officer was the one who shot Brown, after the struggle for the officer’s weapon had ended and Brown was a distance away from the officer. As more details emerge it appears to me that the officerwas justified but other’s here jumped to that conclusion immediately.
> 
> Also, if the officer was in the right, why is the department doing an investigation in order to determine if the shooting was justified, like they do for all officer involved shootings? Why is the officer on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation? Guess the department can be skeptical but an average citizen can’t.



I have a couple of observations and maybe I could referee this debate.  First, you are correct in not jumping to conclusions about the dead kids guilt.   You are equally wrong to jump to conclusions about the officers guilt.  (you didn't use the words guilt, but did allude to the officer shooting the kid after he was no longer a threat)

I think what Tom is saying that you are missing is that even after this evidence was presented about the robbery and other witnesses, people were beggining to say the kid was at fault and you were defending the kid still.  I'm not sure who you are talking about that was jumping to conclusions before this information was out there, but I don't see a lot of people doing that.  (Maybe Vria, but don't know who else.)

Third.  I don't particularly like this ir's method of delivery, but I can't point to a time where he has said something which would indicate he would abuse his power, or approve of others doing so.  Maybe you can point that out.  

JMO.


----------



## Lurk

itsrequired said:


> You really are stupid!





Can't you even make the slightest attempt at growing up?   Very few people give you any credence on this forum because of the positions you take.  You make it even worse arguing like a fourth grader rather than an self-described adult with a responsible position in society.


----------



## Larry Gude

GW8345 said:


> The officer was the one who shot Brown, after the struggle for the officer’s weapon had ended and Brown was a distance away from the officer. As more details emerge it appears to me that the officerwas justified but other’s here jumped to that conclusion immediately.
> 
> I heard on the news this morning that Brown was shot 6 times, twice in the head, all frontal body wounds so it appears to me that Brown was facing the officer when he was shot. Now, was he charging the officer like the witness stated, don’t know, other witnesses stated he was surrendering, who do you believe?
> 
> As more details emerge things become clearer but at the beginning of this conversation, I wasn’t willing to blindly side with the officer like others; guess a person’s opinion can’t change after they get all the facts.
> 
> And to answer your question, I was in a position of authority when I was in the military and I saw how others with authority allowed it to go to their head, hence the reason why I’m skeptical of anyone in a position of authority, esp. police, and prime example is our own IR.
> 
> I don’t view my opinion as being wrong given the information that was available at the time, I view it as giving a shooting victim the benefit of the doubt until more information was made available. I just didn’t jump to the conclusion that the officer was justified and Brown deserved to be shot like others thought. Does that make my opinion wrong, it’s how you look at it, with the information available at the time, no, with the information we now have, yes.
> 
> Also, if the officer was in the right, why is the department doing an investigation in order to determine if the shooting was justified, like they do for all officer involved shootings? Why is the officer on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation? Guess the department can be skeptical but an average citizen can’t.



Excellent, thoughtful post.    

I had no initial reaction to this one, quite happy to wait for some facts before we whip out the pitchforks and torches.


----------



## Hank

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/08/18...he-officer-who-shot-and-killed-michael-brown/


----------



## Hank

http://conservativetribune.com/autopsy-browns-hands-down/


----------



## RPMDAD

I personally have not seen enough evidence on this case one way or the other.   riots ae definitely wrong in any case like this, believe the police response after the shooting was justified. JMHO


----------



## GW8345

Thought this might be interesting to post and figure this was a good enough thread as any.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=670841776267356


----------



## DoWhat

Is there a website were we can watch the riots live tonight?


----------



## LibertyBeacon

DoWhat said:


> Is there a website were we can watch the riots live tonight?



http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/events/3271930


----------



## DoWhat

LibertyBeacon said:


> http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/events/3271930



Thanks.


----------



## Lurk

*A righteous shooting*



GW8345 said:


> Thought this might be interesting to post and figure this was a good enough thread as any.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=670841776267356



A righteous shooting that would lead neighborhood witnesses to claim the perp was assassinated while trying to surrender.  A couple days later when the public was informed there was another weapon, the permanently aggrieved industry would claim there was a throwdown placed in the perp's hand.  A couple days later when the video was released by the authorities the permanently aggrieved industry would blame poverty and (what was it Lew Alcinder said?) "I'm not saying the protests in Ferguson aren't justified -- they are."  The permanently aggrieved industry and their coddlers will not accept truth when it works against their agenda.


----------



## GURPS

well I guess it is on now 



*Ferguson protesters: The peaceful, the elders, the looters, and the ‘militants’*


The young men yell expletives and, with a rebel’s bravado, speak about securing justice for Michael Brown, the black teen fatally shot Aug. 9 by a white police officer, “by any means necessary.”

They are known here as “the militants” — a faction inhabiting the hard-core end of a spectrum that includes online organizers and opportunistic looters — and their numbers have been growing with the severity of their tactics since the shooting.

[clip]

He spoke after a small group of fellow militants held a meeting behind a looted store, sketching out ambitions for the days ahead.

“We are jobless men, and this is our job now — getting justice,” he said. “If that means violence, that’s okay by me. They’ve been doing this to us for years.”

Police on the streets Monday night said some of those wearing red bandannas are members of the Bloods gang.


----------



## Hijinx

“We are jobless men, and this is our job now — getting justice,” he said. “If that means violence, that’s okay by me. They’ve been doing this to us for years.”

Lets fix that statement
 We are jobless bums, we have been involved in petty thefts all along , but now is our chance to make some big scores.
If it means violence that is fine by me as long as they don't shoot any of us.
But then if they do shoot one of us for looting that means we can extend the riot.
We have been doing this since 1968, when they stood and watched us loot and burn.

Yes they bring in the Armored vehicles, and they wear their combat gear, but the most they ever do is fire tear gas.

Let the party begin.  Mama needs a 50 inch TV.


----------



## Tech

Apparently they have the shooting of Brown on tape, unable to clear up the video to just to show the shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DS3nd8Nrcw


----------



## Lurk

Tech said:


> Apparently they have the shooting of Brown on tape, unable to clear up the video to just to show the shooting.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DS3nd8Nrcw





Sure. Go ahead and give the ninjas more excuse to steal gibs and burn up stores.  The dude had his hands in the air when shot according to your evidence.


----------



## mamatutu

According to news outlets, thousands attended Brown's funeral.  I don't think most of them were there to grieve the loss of Brown, but for their own ridiculous agendas.   And, then there is this.  Our country is so screwed up.  Thank you, President Obama!  How many issues do you want Americans to worry about at the same?  Got anything else up your elitist, lying, conniving, uncaring, and disconnected sleeve?
-------------------------

"The White House sent three officials to attend Monday's funeral for Michael Brown in St. Louis -- three more than it sent for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's funeral last year. 

The administration's handling of the Brown funeral already has started to raise comparisons between the two. 

For Monday's funeral, the White House sent two officials with the White House Office of Public Engagement as well as Broderick Johnson, chairman of the My Brother's Keeper Task Force. 

No White House officials, though, were part of the presidential delegation sent last year to Thatcher's funeral. For that, the White House sent former secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker III -- as well as the charge d'affaires to the U.K. and the former U.S. ambassador."

More:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...als-at-michael-browns-funeral-than-thatchers/


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Someone may have inadvertently recorded the shooting. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...-alleged-audio-michael-brown-shooting-n189291

Who knows if it's right (the FBI is investigating), but 11 shots can be heard (with a few second gap between the second group of shots).


----------



## Lurk

Chris0nllyn said:


> Someone may have inadvertently recorded the shooting.
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...-alleged-audio-michael-brown-shooting-n189291
> 
> Who knows if it's right (the FBI is investigating), but 11 shots can be heard (with a few second gap between the second group of shots).



Sounds a lot like more evidence the 18 year old was a bull of a man, was not stopped by being hit (at least) twice in the first volley, and that he kept on coming until finally felled by (up to) four more bullets.  It also suggests the officer was either not current in his marksmanship training or scared ####less by the sight of a 6 foot 5 inch, 300 pound behemoth charging him.


----------



## bachnersd

Lurk said:


> It also suggests the officer was either not current in his marksmanship training or scared ####less by the sight of a 6 foot 5 inch, 300 pound behemoth charging him.



If an eye socket was damaged, I assume his vision was imparied in that eye. Not as easy to hit a target under those conditions.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

bachnersd said:


> If an eye socket was damaged, I assume his vision was imparied in that eye. Not as easy to hit a target under those conditions.



Except we don't know if his eye socket was damaged. That report came from Fox News from an anonymous source. 

CNN reported a source close the them sais his xrays came back negative and was treated for a "swollen face"

https://twitter.com/JulianCummings


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Lurk said:


> Sounds a lot like more evidence the 18 year old was a bull of a man, was not stopped by being hit (at least) twice in the first volley, and that he kept on coming until finally felled by (up to) four more bullets.  It also suggests the officer was either not current in his marksmanship training or scared ####less by the sight of a 6 foot 5 inch, 300 pound behemoth charging him.



Or the eyewitnesses were correct (sort of) and the initial shooting was him running away, then he turned around to receive the other shots heard in the audio.

Or.......a million different things.


----------



## GW8345

Or the audio is fake.......................


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Update:


> Police in Ferguson, Mo., have violated their own reporting standards since last month’s controversial fatal shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson.
> 
> Ferguson Police Department protocol requires that a use-of-force report be submitted after all such incidents — lethal, nonlethal and even when barehanded physical force is used.
> 
> A written directive signed by Chief Thomas Jackson in 2010 states “early and accurate reporting helps establish agency credibility.”
> 
> But there is no use-of-force report for the Aug. 9 shooting death of Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old who was shot multiple times in broad daylight in the middle of a residential street.





> Yahoo News requested the review under Missouri’s public records laws. Ferguson City Clerk Megan Asikainen said the document doesn’t exist.





> Earlier this month, Ferguson officials told Argus Streaming News, a small St. Louis publication, that its request for the arrest reports of two police protesters couldn’t be completed because the “Department of Justice is currently reviewing those same records.”
> 
> “Cooperating with the representatives of the Department is one of our highest priorities,” wrote the city clerk, who suggested that the reporter check back next month. A DOJ spokesman told the Argus that its investigation shouldn’t prohibit Ferguson from complying with public records laws, which include immediate inspection of arrest reports.





> This is not the first time a use-of-force form wasn’t filed for one of Wilson’s cases.
> 
> On Feb. 28, 2013, Wilson arrested Ferguson resident Christopher Brooks for marijuana possession and multiple charges related to resisting arrest and assaulting an officer. Brooks, 28, recently alleged that the officer “roughed him up.” But earlier this year, Chief Jackson awarded Wilson a police commendation for his actions during the struggle and arrest.
> 
> Yahoo News requested the use-of-force report from the Brooks arrest and was told it also doesn’t exist.





> Hickman, a former DOJ statistician and researcher of police behavior, believes Ferguson eventually will have to comply with its own policy.
> 
> “I will be shocked," Hickman said. "If the involved officer did not generate a use-of-force report after discharging his firearm, that would be scandalous.”



http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-poli...-of-michael-brown-doesnt-exist-001401818.html


----------



## Lurk

Chris0nllyn said:


> Update:





Cue "Riots R Us" once more.


----------



## Hijinx

I sure hope the entire Ferguson Police Department hasn't lost all of their hard drives, and emails.


----------



## b23hqb

Hijinx said:


> I sure hope the entire Ferguson Police Department hasn't lost all of their hard drives, and emails.



Would Holder defend them if such actually happened, or refuse to prosecute?


----------



## officeguy

b23hqb said:


> Would Holder defend them if such actually happened, or refuse to prosecute?



Well, Holder can go into private practice now and 'pull an Olson' by defending Wilson and the Ferguson police department against DOJ overreach.


----------



## b23hqb

officeguy said:


> Well, Holder can go into private practice now and 'pull an Olson' by defending Wilson and the Ferguson police department against DOJ overreach.



He is still in control until a "successor" is found and rubber stamped into the office. Even then, me doubts if he'in would go again' the will of the obama.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

> The Glendale, CA Elks Lodge is investigating a shocking incident that went down in the club a week ago Monday, when a performer sang a song celebrating the death of Michael Brown ... for an audience that included a number of retired and current cops ... and TMZ has the video.
> 
> The song was a parody of "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown." Gary Fishell, the performer and a member of the Lodge, changed the lyrics, which include:
> 
> Michael Brown learned a lesson about a messin'
> With a badass policeman
> 
> And he's bad, bad Michael Brown
> Baddest thug in the whole damn town
> Badder than old King Kong
> Meaner than a junkyard dog
> 
> Two men took to fightin'
> And Michael punched in through the door
> And Michael looked like some old Swiss cheese
> His brain was splattered on the floor
> 
> And he's dead, dead Michael Brown
> Deadest man in the whole damn town
> His whole life's long gone
> Deader than a roadkill dog
> 
> The event was the capper for a charity golf event, thrown by retired LAPD Officer Joe Myers, a 32 year veteran who left the force in 2007. We're told 50-60 people attended the dinner, and about half were cops, most of whom were retired. The others were civilians.
> 
> Singer Gary Fishell is a P.I. who once worked as an investigator for the Federal Government. His lawyer tells TMZ, Fishell now realizes the song was "off color and in poor taste." The lawyer adds, "He's a goofball who writes funny songs." We asked why Fishell would sing this in a room full of cops, and the lawyer replied, "He thought the room would get a kick out of it."



http://www.tmz.com/2014/12/23/michael-brown-song-video-dead-police-parody-leroy-brown/


----------



## vraiblonde

Chris0nllyn said:


> http://www.tmz.com/2014/12/23/michael-brown-song-video-dead-police-parody-leroy-brown/



What is "racist" about that song?

In poor taste, yes.  Racist...I'm not seeing it.

And why is some guy being crude and classless news?


----------



## Gilligan

vraiblonde said:


> What is "racist" about that song?
> 
> In poor taste, yes.  Racist...I'm not seeing it.
> 
> And why is some guy being crude and classless news?



That ^. Disgusting...but not a hint of racism that I could see. Of course...nowadays there are all kinds of "stealth" racism..dog whistles...secret racial cues...  Black liquorice will be banned soon.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> What is "racist" about that song?
> 
> In poor taste, yes.  Racist...I'm not seeing it.
> 
> And why is some guy being crude and classless news?



Even if you somehow spin it as racist, jokes are jokes. Jokes are held to a different standard


----------



## Homeland

Chris0nllyn said:


> Update:
> http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-poli...-of-michael-brown-doesnt-exist-001401818.html



Doesn't the officer have a right to remain silent until he seeks counsel?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Homeland said:


> Doesn't the officer have a right to remain silent until he seeks counsel?



Everyone has that right.

Through union bargaining, police officers in certain parts of the country also have the right to have 48 hours of cooling off time before they have to say anything to anyone if they are being investigated for misconduct. They have access to the names and testimony of their accusers. They can be questioned only by one person at a time, and they can’t be threatened with disciplinary action during questioning.


----------



## Bay_Kat

I posted a video in the other thread, the morons are blowing things up right next to gas pumps.  If the blow themselves up, I guess there will be lawsuits galore.


----------



## Homeland

Chris0nllyn said:


> Everyone has that right.
> 
> Through union bargaining, police officers in certain parts of the country also have the right to have 48 hours of cooling off time before they have to say anything to anyone if they are being investigated for misconduct. They have access to the names and testimony of their accusers. They can be questioned only by one person at a time, and they can’t be threatened with disciplinary action during questioning.



Then why the post?  If it's his right not to file the paperwork, then what of it?


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Homeland said:


> Then why the post?  If it's his right not to file the paperwork, then what of it?



Because it's my right to post what I want?

Besides, nothing in that post references his testimony. It's about department policy. Somewhere he doesn't have the "right to not file paperwork".


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Bay_Kat said:


> I posted a video in the other thread, the morons are blowing things up right next to gas pumps.  If the blow themselves up, I guess there will be law suits galore.



Hopefully Darwin takes over and there's no lawsuit.


----------



## Lurk

Chris0nllyn said:


> Hopefully Darwin takes over and there's no lawsuit.



And if it doesn't, we should sue Darwin.


----------



## Homeland

Chris0nllyn said:


> Everyone has that right.
> 
> Through union bargaining, police officers in certain parts of the country also have the right to have 48 hours of cooling off time before they* have *to say anything to anyone if they are being investigated for misconduct. They have access to the names and testimony of their accusers. They can be questioned only by one person at a time, and they can’t be threatened with disciplinary action during questioning.



 I thought the 5th amendment gave officers the right not to say anything.  It was also my understanding that a person accused had the right to know his accuser.


----------



## Homeland

Chris0nllyn said:


> Because it's my right to post what I want?
> 
> Besides, nothing in that post references his testimony. It's about department policy. Somewhere he doesn't have the "right to not file paperwork".



I didn't question your right, I was asking you what is your point.  Wouldn't a written report be similar to a written statement?


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

If this was 'black cop shoots white 18 year old male in D.C.; or D.C. adjacent,' the issue wouldn't be looked at twice.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

Homeland said:


> I didn't question your right, I was asking you what is your point.  Wouldn't a written report be similar to a written statement?



If it's ok to bring up the past for victims, it should be ok for the other party.

It's department policy to write a report when force is used. Are you ok with not having to do so?

There was never a report. For this case, or any others.


----------



## officeguy

DEEKAYPEE8569 said:


> If this was 'black cop shoots white 18 year old male in D.C.; or D.C. adjacent,' the issue wouldn't be looked at twice.



Yesterday, DC cops shot two suspects, one of them for good.  It's not even on the main page of the WaPo, you have to go into the local section to find mention of it. Compare that with the brouhaha in Berkeley, MO for a very similar case (suspect draws gun on cop, gets shot).

In related news, 3 people in DC got shot in other incidents (not involving police) yesterday. Nobody gives a s###.


----------



## Lurk

*Now, here is an interesting theory*

He was such a good boy (according to his girlfriend).  He didn't have a gun (according to bebe's momma).  But the cop's lawyer has an interesting spin on the whole deal in Berkeley, MO.


----------



## Lurk

*Teenager Shot in Missouri...So What?*



officeguy said:


> Yesterday, DC cops shot two suspects, one of them for good.  It's not even on the main page of the WaPo, you have to go into the local section to find mention of it. Compare that with the brouhaha in Berkeley, MO for a very similar case (suspect draws gun on cop, gets shot).
> 
> In related news, 3 people in DC got shot in other incidents (not involving police) yesterday. Nobody gives a s###.



Police killings of blacks are an extremely rare feature of black life and are a minute fraction of black homicide deaths. 

 A more meaningful discussion here.



> The elites’ investment in black victimology is probably too great to hope for an injection of truth into the dangerously counterfactual discourse about race, crime, and policing.


----------



## officeguy

Lurk said:


> Police killings of blacks are an extremely rare feature of black life and are a minute fraction of black homicide deaths.
> 
> A more meaningful discussion here.



The world is full of idiots.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ts-in-Police-Involved-Shooting-286887621.html


----------



## Hijinx

It's the media on it's Latest crusade. Just as the Media has convinced so many people that there is global warming, now they are on this crusade to convince black people that cops just want to shoot them.

If you tell the lie often enough it will be believed.

I still believe cops should go back to using revolvers and stop spraying bullets around with the Semi-Auto pistols, but that is just me.
Give them 6 they will pay more attention to where they put them.


----------



## officeguy

Hijinx said:


> I still believe cops should go back to using revolvers and stop spraying bullets around with the Semi-Auto pistols, but that is just me.
> Give them 6 they will pay more attention to where they put them.



If they got the right guy, I dont care how many times they shoot him. 

There are too many incidents where you have several officers pointing guns at someone (or a car) and then all of them unload mistaking each others shots for shots coming from the 'shotee' or vehicle.


----------



## Hijinx

Like You, If the guy is guilty I  don't care how many times they shoot him either.

But that is not my point. My point is made when we see this video of holes all around the neighborhood, windows shot out and bullets sprayed that did not hit the perp.
If they are going to shoot the guy 20 times fine, but when you are spraying the neighborhood that isn't fine.

These weapons are so easy to just keep firing.  Give them less bullets and they will put them where it counts.
I know some have different views on that, and that's fine with me, but it's my contention is that a proper aim between shots will put more bullets in the criminal and less around the neighborhood. Remember there are things behind the general direction of the target that need to be given a thought before spraying.

Things happen fast and there isn't much time for thought, but getting excited and unloading your weapon in a flurry of bullets isn't the answer.


Post Script.  How has the incidents of police officers shooting themselves or other officers increased since the employment of the Glock and other semi-auto handguns gone up over when they were issued revolvers?


----------



## Monello

> activists and newspaper reporters and editors tries to distort our perception of reality by giving undue emphasis to them. Then, of course, reality begins to catch up with perception, and we have riots, murders of police officers, and so on.



This right here.


----------



## Lurk

Hijinx said:


> But that is not my point. My point is made when we see this video of holes all around the neighborhood, windows shot out and bullets sprayed that did not hit the perp.  If they are going to shoot the guy 20 times fine, but when you are spraying the neighborhood that isn't fine.



The concept you are proposing could be classified under the rubric of 'discipline.'  If you limit a critical resource (bullets) the user will become more conservative in the expenditure of that resource.  Unfortunately, the opposition does not suffer that same constraint and the police are handicapped in a most lethal way.

Fortunately, the opposition more frequently than not is unable or unwilling exercise discipline and generally sprays high-velocity-lead particles throughout the environment.  The advantage to the opposition is somewhat negated, unless the opposition also brings in automatic fire or overwhelming numeric superiority.

I suspect that many police officers across the nation learned discipline in their initial training but that subsequent 'annual qualification' exercises were treated as a necessary evil or interference.  Get the shots down range in a reasonable pattern on the target and get back to fulfilling or meaningful work back on the job.

Rather than qualify by placing 6-or-10-or-12 holes in the outline of a human torso, a demonstration of fire discipline should be taught and expected.  A collection of smaller circles on the target with a double-tap pattern of shots would be one way of encouraging a level of fire discipline that could result in better outcomes.  Lastly, cops need to learn to steel their nerves in a dangerous situation.  Just because your partner or members of the team begin firing, it is not necessary for everyone to empty that first magazine and reload so quickly.


----------



## officeguy

Training doctrine and training quality is what generates these bullet baths, not number of rounds in a mag. Back in the old days, perps had a Raven .25, not a 'Geelok Fowty'.

Better and more realistic training (e.g. simunition force on force training) and firing the fat officers who can't move and marginally qualify would go a long way to reduce the amount of 'overspray'.


----------

